What makes you a geek?

[Concillian]

During a random read, the I/O on said SSD drops from 200 ms to around 50 to 60 ms, that's where the 3 to 4 magnitude loss occurs.

Again, where are the orders of magnitude? 50/200 is 1/4, not even one order of magnitude. Why are you using numbers that don't even support your claims? You disprove yourself in your own writing, if an attempt at humor, it's not terrible, but an attempt at serious claims? At least it's still humorous.

And your claim is that rotating storage drops less from sequential to non-sequential than SSD? That's simply not true. That's the whole advantage of SSD, non-sequential transfers are fast due to seek times that are an actual order of magnitude (not your incorrect definition, but the real definition of order of magnitude) lower than rotating storage.

Again, the AT link shows rotating storage both dropping more and having overall performance less than SSD when comparing sequential and random throughput. If you wish to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to stop making things up and show me a link that has rotating drive and SSD benchmarks demonstrating a counterexample to the AT review. Because the Tom's SSD reviews don't have rotating drive comparsions, so don't support what you've said and the most recent AT review certainly doesn't support what you've said. Where are you seeing data to support what you're arguing, I don't see it. Show me.