Given that we are anticipating a launch of the Samsung 850 EVO very shortly, it is a good time to back fill on the complete performance picture of the 850 Pro series. We have done several full capacity roundups of various SSD models over the past months, and the common theme with all of them is that as the die count is reduced in lower capacity models, so is the parallelism that can be achieved. This effect varies based on what type of flash memory die is used, but the end result is mostly an apparent reduction in write performance. Fueling this issue is the increase in flash memory die capacity over time.
There are two different ways to counteract the effects of write speed reductions caused by larger capacity / fewer dies:
- Reduce die capacity.
- Increase write performance per die.
Recently there has been a trend towards *lower* capacity dies. Micron makes their 16nm flash in both 128Gbit and 64Gbit. Shifting back towards the 64Gbit dies in lower capacity SSD models helps them keep the die count up, increasing overall parallelism, and therefore keeping write speeds and random IO performance relatively high.
Subject: Storage | October 28, 2014 - 01:30 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: ssd, sata, Samsung, 850 EVO
Thanks to an updated SKU list and some searching, we've come across some initial photos, specs, and pricing for the upcoming Samsung 850 EVO.
You may have heard of an 850 EVO 1TB listing over at Frys, but there's actually more information out there. Here's a quick digest:
- Memory: 3D VNAND
- Read: 550MB/sec
- Write: 520MB/sec
- Weight: 0.29 lbs
Pricing (via Antares Pro listings at time of writing):
- 120GB (MZ-75E120B/AM): $100 ($0.83 / GB)
- 250GB (MZ-75E250B/AM): $146 ($0.58 / GB)
- 500GB (MZ-75E500B/AM): $258 ($0.52 / GB)
- 1TB (MZ-75E1T0B/AM): $477 ($0.48 / GB)
In addition to the above, we saw the 1TB model listed for $500 at Frys, and also found the 500GB for $264 at ProVantage. The shipping date on the Frys listing was initially November 3rd, but that has since shifted to November 24th, presumably due to an influx of orders.
We'll be publishing a full capacity roundup on the 850 Pro in anticipation of the 850 EVO launch, which based on these leaks is imminent.
Introduction and Test System Setup
A while ago, in our review of the WD Red 6TB HDD, we noted an issue with the performance of queued commands. This could potentially impact the performance of those drives in multithreaded usage scenarios. While Western Digital acted quickly to get updated drives into the supply chain, some of the first orders might have been shipped unpatched drives. To be clear, an unpatched 5TB or 6TB Red still performs well, just not as well as it *could* perform with the corrected firmware installed.
We received updated samples from WD, as well as applying a firmware update to the samples used in our original review. We were able to confirm that the update does in fact work, and brings a WD60EFRX-68MYMN0 to the identical and improved performance characteristics of a WD60EFRX-68MYMN1 (note the last digit). In this article we will briefly clarify those performance differences, now that we have data more consistent with the vast majority of 5 and 6TB Reds that are out in the wild.
Test System Setup
We currently employ a pair of testbeds. A newer ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/Thunderbolt and an ASUS Z87-PRO. Storage performance variance between both boards has been deemed negligible.
PC Perspective would like to thank ASUS, Corsair, and Kingston for supplying some of the components of our test rigs.
|Hard Drive Test System Setup|
|CPU||Intel Core i7-4770K|
|Motherboard||ASUS P8Z77-V Pro/TB / ASUS Z87-PRO|
|Memory||Kingston HyperX 4GB DDR3-2133 CL9|
|Hard Drive||G.Skill 32GB SLC SSD|
|Video Card||Intel® HD Graphics 4600|
|Power Supply||Corsair CMPSU-650TX|
|Operating System||Windows 8.1 X64 (Update 1)|
- PCMark Vantage and 7
- HDTach *omitted due to incompatibility with >2TB devices*
- PCPer File Copy Test
Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
It seems a lot of folks have been incorporating Silicon Motion's SM2246EN controller into their product lines. We first reviewed the Angelbird SSD wrk, but only in a 512GB capacity. We then reviewed a pair of Corsair Force LX's (256GB and 512GB). ADATA has joined the club with their new Premier SP610 product line, and today we are going to take a look at all available capacities of this new model:
It's fortunate that ADATA was able to sample us a full capacity spread, as this will let us evaluate all shipping SSD capacites that exist for the Silicon Motion SM2246EN controller.
Subject: Storage, Shows and Expos | September 16, 2014 - 02:29 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: ssd, slc, sata, mlc, micron, M600, crucial
You may already be familiar with the Micron Crucial M550 line of SSDs (if not, familiarize yourself with our full capacity roundup here). Today Micron is pushing their tech further by releasing a new M600 line. The M600's are the first full lineup from Micron to use their 16nm flash (previously only in their MX100 line). Aside from the die shrink, Micron has addressed the glaring issue we noted in our M550 review - that issue being the sharp falloff in write speeds in lower capacities of that line. Their solution is rather innovative, to say the least.
Recall the Samsung 840 EVO's 'TurboWrite' cache, which gave that drive a burst of write speed during short sustained write periods. The 840 EVO accomplished this by each TLC die having a small SLC section of flash memory. All data written passed through this cache, and once full (a few GB, varying with drive capacity), write speed slowed to TLC levels until the host system stopped writing for long enough for the SSD to flush the cached data from SLC to TLC.
The Micron M600 SSD in 2.5" SATA, MSATA, and M.2 form factors.
Micron flips the 'typical' concept of caching methods on its head. It does employ two different types of flash writing (SLC and MLC), but the first big difference is that the SLC is not really cache at all - not in the traditional sense, at least. The M600 controller, coupled with some changes made to Micron's 16nm flash, is able to dynamically change the mode of each flash memory die *on the fly*. For example, the M600 can place most of the individual 16GB (MLC) dies into SLC mode when the SSD is empty. This halves the capacity of each die, but with the added benefit of much faster and more power efficient writes. This means the M600 would really perform more like an SLC-only SSD so long as it was kept less than half full.
As you fill the SSD towards (and beyond) half capacity, the controller incrementally clears the SLC-written data, moving that data onto dies configured to MLC mode. Once empty, the SLC die is switched over to MLC mode, effectively clearing more flash area for the increasing amount of user data to be stored on the SSD. This process repeats over time as the drive is filled, meaning you will see less SLC area available for accelerated writing (see chart above). Writing to the SLC area is also advantageous in mobile devices, as those writes not only occur more quickly, they consume less power in the process:
For those worst case / power user scenarios, here is a graph of what a sustained sequential write to the entire drive area would look like:
Realize this is not typical usage, but if it happened, you would see SLC speeds for the first ~45% of the drive, followed by MLC speeds for another 10%. After the 65% point, the drive is forced to initiate the process of clearing SLC and flipping dies over to MLC, doing so while the host write is still in progress, and therefore resulting in the relatively slow write speed (~50 MB/sec) seen above. Realize that in normal use (i.e. not filling the entire drive at full speed in one go), garbage collection would be able to rearrange data in the background during idle time, meaning write speeds should be near full SLC speed for the majority of the time. Even with the SSD nearly full, there should be at least a few GB of SLC-mode flash available for short bursts of SLC speed writes.
This caching has enabled some increased specs over the prior generation models:
Note the differences in write speeds, particularly in the lower capacity models. The 128GB M550 was limited to 190MB/sec, while the M600 can write at 400MB/sec in SLC mode (which is where it should sit most of the time).
We'll be testing the M600 shortly and will come back with a full evaluation of the SSD as a whole and more specifically how it handles this new tech under real usage scenarios.
Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
We first looked at the Silicon Motion 2246EN controller in our Angelbird SSD wrk review. In that review, we noted the highest sequential performance seen in any SATA SSD reviewed to date. Eager to expand our testing to include additional vendors and capacities, our next review touching on this controller is the Corsair Force LX series of SSDs. The Force LX Series is available in 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB capacities, and today we will look at the 256GB and 512GB iterations of this line:
Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
AMD has been branching their brand out past CPUs for nearly a decade now. Back in 2006, AMD acquired ATI, and their video card branch has been highly competitive ever since. Then in 2011, AMD entered the RAM market by partnering with Patriot and VisionTek. That partnership appears to have been fruitful, along with some additional help in the form of RAMDisk software through an additional partnership with Dataram, as more recently a highly competitive Gamer Series of that RAM was launched. So, CPU's - check, GPU's - check, RAM - check. What's next? Solid State Drives? Sure, why not!
Behold the AMD Radeon R7 SSD!
Ok, so the naming might be a bit confusing for those familiar with AMD's video card line of the same name, so you'll have to be sure to include 'SSD' in your searches if you are looking for one of these on the market. Just like AMD handled the RAM, they have again chosen to partner with another company in the creation of a new product:
...and this time that choice was OCZ. As you can see above, the Radeon R7 is a gamer-oriented SSD, which sits right in between the Vertex 460 and the Vector 150 in OCZ's product lineup. The expectation is performance similar to the Vector, but with a slightly lower warranty and GB/day rating. We also see the inclusion of the lower cost 'advanced' Toshiba A19nm MLC flash, which should help with pricing and get this new SSD into the hands of even more gamers.
Subject: Storage | August 13, 2014 - 02:38 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: toshiba, ssd, sata, ocz, barefoot 3, ARC
Before even looking at the performance the real selling point of the new OCZ ARC 100 is the MSRP, the 240GB and 480GB models are slated to be released at $0.50/GB and will likely follow the usual trend of SSD prices and drop from there. The drives use the Barefoot 3 controller, this one clocked slightly lower than the Vertex 460 but still capable of accelerating encryption. Once The Tech Report set the drive up in their test bed the performance was almost on par with the Vertex 460 and other mid to high end SSDs, especially in comparison to the Crucial MX100.
"OCZ's latest value SSD is priced at just $0.50 per gig, but it hangs with mid-range and even high-end drives in real-world and demanding workloads. It's also backed by an upgraded warranty and some impressive internal reliability data provided by OCZ. We take a closer look:"
Here are some more Storage reviews from around the web:
- OCZ ARC 100 240GB SSD @ Kitguru
- OCZ ARC 100 240GB SSD Review @ Legit Reviews
- OCZ ARC 100 240GB @ Legion Hardware
- OCZ ARC 100 SSD @ SSD Review
- OCZ ARC 100 240GB SSD Review @ Hardware Canucks
- Samsung 845DC EVO 3-bit Toggle MLC and 845DC PRO 3D V-NAND SSDs @ The Register
- Synology DS412+ - Network Attached Storage @ Funky Kit
Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
OCZ is on what I would consider to be an upswing now that it exists under the relative safety of its parent company, Toshiba. Shortly after they were acquired, OCZ cut a bunch of unnecessary and/or redundant SKUs from their inventory and simultaneously began the transition of all of their product lines to exclusively use Toshiba branded flash. It only makes sense, given that flash is now available in-house - a luxury OCZ had wanted to have for quite some time. The changeover so far has refreshed the Vector 150, Vertex 460, and most recently the RevoDrive 350. Today OCZ has made another change, but instead of refreshing an old product, they are introducing a new one:
Behold the ARC 100!
To those wondering why OCZ needs another model SSD, and where that model will fall in their lineup, here's everything you need to see:
...so we have a slightly de-rated SSD, with the same Indilinx Barefoot controller, and the same Toshiba 19nm flash, but with a *significantly* reduced price. I wouldn't sweat the 20GB/day rating, as the vast majority of users will average far less than that daily when that usage is spread over a multi-year period. Even heavy gamers that blow through 100+GB of writes on an initial system and game install will still average far less than that over the subsequent months and years. Here is a look at the complete OCZ product spectrum, including their business and PCIe offerings:
OK, so they've got my attention with this price thing, so lets see how well the ARC performs given its lower cost:
Subject: Storage, Shows and Expos | August 7, 2014 - 05:37 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: ssd, SM2256, silicon motion, sata, FMS 2014, FMS
Silicon Motion has announced their SM2256 controller. We caught a glimpse of this new controller on the Flash Memory Summit show floor:
The big deal here is the fact that this controller is a complete drop-in solution that can drive multiple different types of flash, as seen below:
The SM2256 can drive all variants of TLC flash.
The controller itself looks to have decent specs, considering it is meant to drive 1xnm TLC flash. Just under 100k random 4k IOPS. Writes are understandably below the max saturation of SATA 6Gb/sec at 400MB/sec (writing to TLC is tricky!). There is also mention of Silicon Motion's NANDXtend Technology, which claims to add some extra ECC and DSP tech towards the end of increasing the ability to correct for bit errors in the flash (more likely as you venture into 8 bit per cell territory).