<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Silicon Power Slim S80 240GB SSD Review &#8211; A Price-to-Performance Sweet Spot	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/</link>
	<description>The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource &#124;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:20:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Lsi		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-22171</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lsi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=85835#comment-22171</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21345&quot;&gt;Dan&lt;/a&gt;.

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

I wouldn&#039;t be too concerned about a lack of SLC cache in this drive, as it&#039;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&#039;t cutting corners on flash quality.

Crucial&#039;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&#039;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 &quot;budget&quot; product with pure MLC but doesn&#039;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.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21345">Dan</a>.</p>
<p>Their multiple choices of controllers used in these product lines is most definitely why their power consumption specs were generic.</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t be too concerned about a lack of SLC cache in this drive, as it&#8217;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&#8217;t cutting corners on flash quality.</p>
<p>Crucial&#8217;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&#8230;until its firmware matures.  Anandtech&#8217;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 &#8220;budget&#8221; product with pure MLC but doesn&#8217;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&#8211;especially since the BX100 is more power efficient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lsi		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-22170</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lsi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=85835#comment-22170</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>Firmware updates are very easy using SPCC&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;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&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dan		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21345</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=85835#comment-21345</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21327&quot;&gt;Tequila_Mckngbrd&lt;/a&gt;.

Agreed.  Who knows if the &quot;chip’s close-up shows a part number of&quot; for anything produced by these guys will be accurate down the road.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21327">Tequila_Mckngbrd</a>.</p>
<p>Agreed.  Who knows if the &#8220;chip’s close-up shows a part number of&#8221; for anything produced by these guys will be accurate down the road.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: renosablast		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21338</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[renosablast]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=85835#comment-21338</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The S80 is now down to $84.99 --  .35/GB.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The S80 is now down to $84.99 &#8212;  .35/GB.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Benjamin Hojnik		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21336</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Benjamin Hojnik]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=85835#comment-21336</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21335&quot;&gt;Mike&lt;/a&gt;.

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).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thessdreview.com/daily-news/latest-buzz/silicon-power-slim-s80-240gb-ssd-review/#comment-21335">Mike</a>.</p>
<p>No, Intel actually makes their own controllers too.<br />
Intel 730 uses their inhouse controller for example.</p>
<p>But yes, their consumer stuff uses sandforce and is no better than other sandforce based stuff (apart from cherry picked nand).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
