New The Intel® Solid-State Drive 730

Reno Richter

macrumors member
Original poster
May 31, 2012
84
17
Those who understand the details care to comment vs what else is in the marketplace.


http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/solid-state-drives-730-series.html


Optimized Performance. We specially qualified components and pushed factory performance tuning limits by boosting the controller speed by 50 percent and NAND bus speed 20 percent. The result, 50µs read latencies, consistently high transfer rates of up to 550 MB/s sequential reads, and up to 89,000 IOPS random reads.
Data Center DNA. Gain extreme endurance—up to 70 GB of writes per day compared to the industry typical 20 GB per day—and enjoy peace-of-mind dependability throughout the life of the drive with advanced firmware algorithms, delivering performance consistency across all data types.
RAID Performance Scaling. Achieve extreme storage performance for the most demanding usage models with RAID 0 configurations combining two or more Intel® SSD 730 Series drives with an Intel® platform supporting Intel® Rapid Storage Technology for throughput exceeding 1,000 MB/s.
Quality and Reliability. 3rd generation Intel controller, optimized Intel firmware, and 20nm NAND technology provide dependable up-time for intensive storage workloads—backed by a limited five-year warranty.
 

Weaselboy

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 23, 2005
30,330
10,090
California
There is a thorough review here. It looks like Intel is trying to market and "enterprise class" drive to consumers, and the price reflects that.

Unless you are a VERY heavy user (by that I mean a lot of write activity), I don't think it is a good value compared to other consumer drives out there. JMO :)
 

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
115
Vancouver, BC
There is a thorough review here. It looks like Intel is trying to market and "enterprise class" drive to consumers, and the price reflects that.

Unless you are a VERY heavy user (by that I mean a lot of write activity), I don't think it is a good value compared to other consumer drives out there. JMO :)
Agreed. Average performance among its peers but at a higher price.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,897
1,752
There is a thorough review here. It looks like Intel is trying to market and "enterprise class" drive to consumers, and the price reflects that.
Some of the knocks the conclusion puts on the drive aren't as relevant in a OS X and external drive enclosure context (i.e., use with a Mac Pro since this is Mac Pro forum).

OS X doesn't do anything with Topal/eDrive standards based encryption ( without substantive extra software). OS X volume encryption is layered on with software.

Non laptop battery power isn't a big deal when plugged into the wall all the time. However, the power loss protection is probably a good thing. Consumer SSDs primarily aimed at laptops will toss that ( fall back on laptop's battery). The Mac Pro and, more than likely, external drive enclosure has no battery. ( can put both on top of a battery back-up power supply ).


Unless you are a VERY heavy user (by that I mean a lot of write activity), I don't think it is a good value compared to other consumer drives out there. JMO :)
As a Fusion drive set-up (e.g., 240GB + 2TB ( > 10% ) , 480GB + 3TB ( > 15%) , or perhaps 480GB + 4TB ( > 10% ) ) and moving/mutating larger files will drive high writes. Everything gets written to the SSD and maybe off to the HDD.

Similar would be as a ZFS logging/cache SSD .

In addition, to writes an app that needs "real time" responses of data off/to the drive. It is not "fastest" as much as more consistent. Being consistant may make some RAID controllers happier. ( but again OS X negates the Intel Rapid Storage Tech aspects. )

As a generic OS/Apps SSD not so much.
 

Machines

macrumors 6502
Jan 23, 2015
426
89
Fox River Valley , Illinois
I took a brief look at AnandTech's article and Intel's spec sheet for the Intel 730 SSD and my contribution is the following comments :

6G interface and give or take 500 MB/s reads and writes for the higher capacity versions . Yawn . Nothing special here.

So, what is ? Let's look deeper .

Did anyone notice these drives don't exactly sip power at load ? 5.5 W . Samsung's 850 PRO product line do a lot better with energy efficiancy (max 2.5 W). Does anyone suppose that will improve longevity ? Which leads us to this :

And a 5 year warranty ? Sure . I saw the 128TB endurance figures . Pretty wimpy compared to the 300 TB TBW warranty cap with Sammy's 850 PROs . But I looked carefully for a TBW upper cap on the 730's warranty and couldn't find one . I'm willing to bet they'd bounce a warranty claim if you used them heavily . If not, then maybe a great buy for RAW 4K video editors . Think 3.5 TB writes per workflow hour . In theory , one month of that can kill a drive .

The 480GB version does nicely with in the incompressable data sequential test , so I'd assume they'd be high performance with RAID 0 . Controller chip based compression kills RAID 0 performance .
 
Last edited:

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,897
1,752
Did anyone notice these drives don't exactly sip power at load ? 5.5 W . Samsung's 850 PRO product line do a lot better with energy efficiancy (max 2.5 W). Does anyone suppose that will improve longevity ?
They aren't designed for laptops. Uniformity ( the larger RAM cache/working area outlined in Anandtech article ) and Power-loss protection are probably both contributors to the higher power.

The 850 PRO has no power-loss protection. A non issue inside of a laptop with its internal battery as a back stop. A bigger issue in a server where there may/may not be battery power and clean shutdowns.

And a 5 year warranty ? Sure . I saw the 128TB endurance figures . Pretty wimpy compared to the 300 TB TBW warranty cap with Sammy's 850 PROs .
Intel cranks the write IOPs rate higher on the 750 than the DC 3500 and DC 3700 models. The controller isn't really tuned for that mode (probably short circuits on better data placement overhead; write faster as opposed to better.). The DC 3700 makes both the 750 and 850 PRO look wimpy, but will pay for that difference in increased costs and generally slower writes. Similar issue here. The 750 is configured to be cheaper than the Intel DC 3x00 models. None of Intel's stuff is trying to be Samsung on lowest price.


If not, then maybe a great buy for RAW 4K video editors . Think 3.5 TB writes per workflow hour . In theory , one month of that can kill a drive .
The max capacity of the 750 is 0.480TB. Data capacities of 3.5 TB / hour are the wrong tool if really need to cover that much capacity. Have to store the data at least once to work on it. Mutating RAW is odd. If anything is being flowed through the workflow it should be compressed (minimally lossless).

Controller chip based compression kills RAID 0 performance .
It is possible to compress at wire speed. Just about any high end controller is doing checksum in fixed logic. It isn't a big leap to put a fixed function compression engine in there also. Where to put the data blocks and manage wear leveling may be run on some ARM core but formatting the data blocks isn't necessarily a job for a general purpose CPU core.

Potential problem with RAID 0 is more likely to pop up do to redundant compression, encryption, and/or checksumming.
 

Machines

macrumors 6502
Jan 23, 2015
426
89
Fox River Valley , Illinois
They aren't designed for laptops. Uniformity ( the larger RAM cache/working area outlined in Anandtech article ) and Power-loss protection are probably both contributors to the higher power.

I thought this was the Mac Pro forum ? We seem to be discussing laptops and servers now . Mac Pro is neither . She's a workstation ... :rolleyes:

The 850 PRO has no power-loss protection.
Pro users of Mac Pros would certainly use an UPS and program it to safely shut down during a power interruption .

Intel DC 3x00 models
Out of curiosity , what's the endurance of the DC 3500 and DC 3700 since the 730 can't compete with Sammy ?

The max capacity of the 750 is 0.480TB. Data capacities of 3.5 TB / hour are the wrong tool if really need to cover that much capacity. Have to store the data at least once to work on it. Mutating RAW is odd. If anything is being flowed through the workflow it should be compressed (minimally lossless).
Aha. I should have clarified some of my statements . I was thinking of installing four such drives (SSD capacities top out at 1TB - at least the non-enterprise ones) on two Sonnet Tempo Pro PCIe cards in a Mac Pro (remember , Mac Pro ? As in Mac Pro forum ?) and do a software RAID 0 . This would be the proper way to get at least some workflow opportunity with RAW 4K editing . Not much , but it's all internally mounted . Compression messes up color and other video attributes. That's why the still image and video guys prefer RAW .

Now that I think about it, why isn't there a 1TB version of the 730 ?
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,897
1,752
I thought this was the Mac Pro forum ? We seem to be discussing laptops and servers now . Mac Pro is neither . She's a workstation ... :rolleyes
....
Pro users of Mac Pros would certainly use an UPS and program it to safely shut down during a power interruption . [/quote]

A Mac Pro with server class Xeon E5 CPU packages, ECC RAM , and hooked to a UPS is far more closer to being in a server class than a laptop one.

You asked about the power levels. That is why. There is no primary desgin intent to put DC 3x00 SSDs into laptops. The 730 is just a cheaper DC 3x00.


Out of curiosity , what's the endurance of the DC 3500 and DC 3700 since the 730 can't compete with Sammy ?
Did you even read the Anantech review on the 730? I didn't quote it because you made reference to it. There is a comparison chart right there in the article.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7803/intel-ssd-730-480gb-review





Aha. I should have clarified some of my statements . I was thinking of installing four such drives (SSD capacities top out at 1TB - at least the non-enterprise ones) on two Sonnet Tempo Pro PCIe cards in a Mac Pro (remember , Mac Pro ? As in Mac Pro forum ?) and do a software RAID 0 .
If striping over 4 SSD then the write endurance is 4x what the individual drives are ( that is a different dimension of when you will run into a failure of that RAID 0).

So no, it wouldn't run out in a month of normal work week. ( 4 weeks * 35 hours = 140 ; 140 * 3.5TB/hr = 490TB. 4x 128TB = 512TB. ). It is close.

Software RAID isn't going to have problems with SSD controllers that do compression.

This would be the proper way to get at least some workflow opportunity with RAW 4K editing . Not much , but it's all internally mounted . Compression messes up color and other video attributes.
Compression by the SSD controller doesn't do jack squat to color and video attributes. The data that comes in goes right back out when requested ( up until the drive has failures which is different issue).

Compression in and of itself does not necessarily do anything to video data. Lossless compression doesn't "loose" any data; hence lossless.



That's why the still image and video guys prefer RAW .
RAW reference files sure. Entire uncompressed RAW files being mutated into another set of uncompressed RAW files in a workflow, no. RAW originals typically would be archived to something that is a tad more safe than a 4 stripe RAID 0 array. Intermediate proxy files would be more sutiable for RAID 0 since they could be replicated if necessary from the originals.


Now that I think about it, why isn't there a 1TB version of the 730 ?
Price and/or the fact that for the higher endurance drives the "raw" flash capacity is being dedicated to duplication and/or over-provision. For these Intel drives in particular it is also the combination of the flash cell tech the controllers are certified for and the number of channels/packages they can handle.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.