Silicon Power Slim S80 240GB SSD Review – A Price-to-Performance Sweet Spot


Crystal Disk Benchmark is used to measure read and write performance through sampling of random data which is, for the most part, incompressible. The left screen capture shows results for testing with “zero-fill” (compressible) data, while the right screen capture shows results for random data.

SP S80 CDM zero fillSP S80 CDM random

Crystal Disk Mark shows us strong read and write results for both the “zero-fill” and for the “random” test runs, with both achieving over 500MB/s reads. Random results are less than 5% lower than the zero-fill results, showing excellent consistency for a value-oriented drive. One area where SSDs put HDDs to shame is the random 4K results. Many spinning-platter HDDs cannot even achieve 1MB/s read speeds, while the Slim S80 hits 53MB/s (zero-fill) and 24MB/s (random) read speeds. The 4K write speeds are very consistent at 65MB/s (zero-fill) and 62MB/s (random).


The toughest benchmark available for solid-state drives is AS SSD, as it relies solely on incompressible data samples when testing performance. AS SSD test results are often considered to be “worst case scenario” for data transfer speeds. Many enthusiasts not only wish to see what the best performance they can attain with their SSD is, but also what is the bottom level of performance that they can expect. Transfer speeds are shown in MB/s in the left screen capture, and IOPS are shown in the right screen capture.

SP S80 AS SSD MBs run 2SP S80 AS SSD IOPS run 2








The Slim S80 is able to achieve over 500MB/s (515) read speeds, and 450MB/s write speeds. 4K-64 thread IOPS come in at 40,000 for reads, and over 58,000 for writes. The total AS SSD score of 687 is acceptable, especially when considering the S80’s price point.

SP S80 AS SSD copy bench run 2

In the AS SSD copy-bench test, the S80 is fastest when downloading an ISO image, and slowest for program files.


Anvil’s Storage Utilities (ASU) is the most complete set of tests available for the solid state drive today. The benchmark displays not only throughput test results, but also for IOPS and disk access times. Not only does Anvil Storage Utilities incorporate a preset SSD benchmark, but also includes the ability to perform endurance testing and threaded I/O read/write/mixed tests. All of these are simple to understand and use.

SP S80 Anvil storage utilities R1

Anvil shows remarkably similar total results for both read and write, with both around 2200 points. The sequential read speeds of 516MB/s and write speeds of 459MB/s are very similar to the AS SSD results. We do see better IOPS performance with this drive using Anvil, with reads topping out at a little over 50,000; and writes topping out at over 68,000. The total score of 4413 is middle-of-the-pack as compared to all drives, but is again quite good for a value-priced SSD.


Iometer is an I/O subsystem measurement and characterization tool for single and clustered systems. It was originally developed by the Intel Corporation, however they discontinued work on the program. In 2003 it was re-launched by an international group of individuals who are now continuously improving, porting and extending the product that is now widely used within the industry.

Iometer graph Silicon Power S80 240GBOur Iometer “MAX IOPS” testing yielded maximum read IOPS of 48,034 and maximum write IOPS of 66,005.


  1. blank

    240GB seems nice, but other capacity points just seem too expensive compared to the competition.
    I mean, you can get reactor 1TB for 300€ nowdays.

    • blank

      Benjamin Hojnik you seem to know a lot about ssds. I have been reading your posts for a wile now. I have a question for you. You can respond if you like. Ive asked this question on the forums but so far no ones has answered it. Maybe you know? How does a good amount of mushkin ssds have 2,000,000 hours MTBF when they use asynchronous, synchronous and toggle flash? But other manufacturers have 1,500,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 MTBF. Whats there secret?s MTBF when they use Asynchronous, synchronous and toggle flash? But other manufacturers have 1,500,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 MTBF. What’s there secret?

      • blank

        I wouldn’t focus on MTBF, the industry has no standard for measuring MTBF. Different manufacturers use different workloads to specify their MTBF. All you should really care about is what type of NAND they use. SLC, MLC, or TLC. If they use MLC or TLC NAND, make sure they use SLC caching. That’s it in a nutshell for right now. Best thing to do is read up on it on your own, there’s a lot of information out there.

      • blank

        Type of nand really doesn’t determine reliability of an SSD.
        Not under typical workloads anyway.

        What one should focus about is the controller. Thats the single most important part of the ssd and is also the #1 reason for faulires.

        MTBF is really meaningless, ie more MTBF doesnt mean a more reliable drive, especially when comparing different brands.

      • blank

        I agree on all marks but the type of NAND for reliability. The controller is definitely where reliability is the most important, but higher density NAND flash increases bit rate error. To correct those errors ECC needs to either be programmed, or included in the controller. The type of NAND also affects endurance.

      • blank

        Whats the most reliable nand today?

      • blank

        Anything SLC based 🙂

        Also, sammy’s 3D MLC comes close too. Apperently they internally tested their 128GB model and went thru 8PB of writes. Pretty mad, if its actually true.

      • blank

        Yeah this is true, but ECC engines in modern controllers are so powerfull and there is lots of spare area invisible to the user and controller (sandisk tlc apperently has 1/5 dedicated just for that), so it doesn’t pose that much a problem.

        Crappy nand can be compensated with a proper controller. Crappy controller can’t be compensated with a proper nand.

        Besides, most faulires come down to controller failing or trippin on acid, no failed nand. Some controller can actually withstand flash die faulires just fine (sandforce does that for example).

      • blank

        Whats the most reliable controller today?

      • blank

        Intel, marvell, samsung are pretty good choices with excellent track record.

        Sandforce, phison, jmicron… Not so much (granted, their latter stuff got better).

      • blank

        I thought Intel controllers were/or made by Sandforce/Lsi?

      • blank

        No, Intel actually makes their own controllers too.
        Intel 730 uses their inhouse controller for example.

        But yes, their consumer stuff uses sandforce and is no better than other sandforce based stuff (apart from cherry picked nand).

  2. blank

    No SLC Cache, disappointing. I’ll avoid Silicon Power SSD’s after their controller bait-and-switch tactics on the S60 and S70’s. It’s even worse than what Kingston and PNY did (and I avoid those drives, too).

    • blank

      Agreed. Who knows if the “chip’s close-up shows a part number of” for anything produced by these guys will be accurate down the road.

      • blank

        Their multiple choices of controllers used in these product lines is most definitely why their power consumption specs were generic.

        I wouldn’t be too concerned about a lack of SLC cache in this drive, as it’s not using cheap TLC flash with its inherent latency and longevity concerns vs MLC. SLC hybrid drives often have issues with performance consistency due to firmware design, so sometimes simpler is better when the mfg isn’t cutting corners on flash quality.

        Crucial’s MX200 is a prime example of the mixed bag that SLC hybrid design (DWA in their terminology) can be when applied to an MLC-based drive…until its firmware matures. Anandtech’s review traces are a good example of the potential compromises, mainly in latency issues when the firmware stumbles while managing the SLC-MLC combo under heavy loads. Their BX100 uses a lower end controller and is the simpler “budget” product with pure MLC but doesn’t have the glaring issues under certain loads that the MX200 does, which makes the MX200 unworthy to pay any premium for until the firmware is stabilized–especially since the BX100 is more power efficient.

  3. blank

    The S80 is now down to $84.99 — .35/GB.

  4. blank

    The firmware version tested in this review (7.2 as seen in the benchmark result screen shots) was outdated months before this article was published, and should have been updated to 8.0. I purchased one of these SPCC drives in late 2014 and tested the 8.0 release in January. 8.2 is the current firmware as of earlier this month.

    Firmware updates are very easy using SPCC’s tool, and it automatically checks and installs the required updater when the utility is run since SPCC often swaps between Phison and Sandforce controllers in some of these product lines.

    Making sure firmware is up to date is pretty important on drive reviews, especially these days as they are likely to be optimizing for PCMark 8’s more intensive testing methods (only available in the non-consumer version) vs generally prioritizing burst / light load performance in the past. I have seen negligible differences in the drive’s light load benchmark performance with the new 8.x firmwares vs the stock 7.2, but the story could be very different in the heavier PCMark 8 test traces. If you still have this drive, updated results would be appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *