Why is the Intel 730 240GB SSD such a low seq write speed?

[Toxicable]

Im looking at buying a SSD and my options are between a SanDisk Ultra II for 171$ and a Intel 730 for 180
They are both 240 GB and it's NZD

However from what ive looked at the 730 is almost half the sequential write speed, is this right? what one do you guys think I should go for

[flibberdipper]

Well, the Intel SSDs are supposed to be more of an endurance SSD, not raw performance like an 840 EVO or something.

[the jolly roger]

Well, the Intel SSDs are supposed to be more of an endurance SSD, not raw performance like an 840 EVO or something.

agree, they are very fast but more important than speed (IMO) they are some of the most reliable consumer grade ssds out there

[Toxicable]

Well, the Intel SSDs are supposed to be more of an endurance SSD, not raw performance like an 840 EVO or something.

Ahhhhhh OK, thanks, I didn't know this. Also i spose write isnt too muchg of and issue since Read is what you want to be high for start up/loading games

[Enderman]

Well, the Intel SSDs are supposed to be more of an endurance SSD, not raw performance like an 840 EVO or something.

The thing is the 480GB version has proper write speeds of nearly 500MB/s like other SSDs...

 

I also don't understand the reason why the 240GB versions has such slow writes compared to all other SSDs

[tmlhalo]

While write speeds are nice it usually isn't the reason why you get a SSD. The read for boot / loading is the main thing. I would personally go with the SanDisk. It is a little cheaper, actually has a better random read rate and still has the write speed even though that is a very minor point. I'm also not much of a fan of Intel drives. So I have a small bias here. 

[flibberdipper]

The thing is the 480GB version has proper write speeds of nearly 500MB/s like other SSDs...

 

I also don't understand the reason why the 240GB versions has such slow writes compared to all other SSDs

Magic.

[Sakkura]

Smaller-capacity SSDs have fewer NAND dies, which means less of the controller's channels can be utilized. It's a bit like running dual channel memory on a system capable of quad channel memory.

 

Anyway, sequential write performance is relatively unimportant. Random IO is more important than sequential, and read is generally more important than write. And of course, these numbers are just what Intel and Sandisk claim; I'd put more faith in Intel's numbers than Sandisk's.

[Toxicable]

Smaller-capacity SSDs have fewer NAND dies, which means less of the controller's channels can be utilized. It's a bit like running dual channel memory on a system capable of quad channel memory.

 

Anyway, sequential write performance is relatively unimportant. Random IO is more important than sequential, and read is generally more important than write. And of course, these numbers are just what Intel and Sandisk claim; I'd put more faith in Intel's numbers than Sandisk's.

Well from their websites, which i know are not real world numbers

Sandisk - Read: 550 MB/s 91k IOPS. Write: 500 MB/s 83K IOPS

Intel - Read: 550 MB/s 86K IOPS. Write: 270 MB/s 56K IOPS

But I think im leaning towards the Intel since It also comes with a 5 year warranty 

[hojnikb]

The reason intel has low sequential speeds is due to the fact, that they dont use any tricks to get faster writes.

 

Sandisk ultra ii for example uses ncache to cache write. But when cache runs out, it will be even slower at writes than intel.