|Galcobar ||May 17, 2012 09:00 PM |
One suggestion I might make in regards to the review is to identify why the SF-2100 series of controllers is less capable than the SF-2200 series in the introductory page.
I am left wondering about the conclusion stated on almost every testing page that the difference between the two drives is due to using a SATAII controller. The 64GB OCZ Synapse uses 16 NAND chips, according to the earlier HWC review. That would mean all eight channels are populated with two devices per channel, allowing for interleaving. The 64GB Accelerator is described as using eight modules, with the part number indicating they're 64Gb packages, with the 10th letter being B, indicating one die per module. http://www.micron.com/~/media/Documents/Products/Part%20Numbering%20Guide/218numngnand.ashx
Thus the Synapse has 16 devices to the Accelerator's eight -- that would mean no interleaving could occur on the Accelerator. Given almost all of the reads and writes are done well below the SATAII limit, would the difference in number of NAND devices -- and subsequent limitation on interleaving -- not be at least as likely to be the source of the small performance discrepancy seen under the synthetic tests?
Also, typo at the bottom of page 3 (SF-2182), and second sentence/second paragraph on page 11 (Unlike the competition, Corsairís implementation uses SATA 2 rather than SATA 3and relies upon a lower-performance controller).