Final Words

To be frank, reviewing a SATA MLC SSD has gotten rather unexciting over the past year or so. On the performance side there are barely any areas where one can get enthusiastic about because the SATA 6Gbps interface and AHCI driver stack are both so saturated. It feels like the purpose of my testing is mostly to make sure that someone didn't totally screw up the product design because other than that the performance differences between modern SATA 6Gbps controllers are getting negligible. Only Samsung and SanDisk can provide performance that's distinguishably better than others, which leaves JMicron, Silicon Motion and Phison based drives fighting over the value segment.

This brings us to the SX930 and JMF670H. If I had to pick one word to describe the two, that would be 'average'. There is nothing that truly separates the SX930 and JMF670H from the drives and controllers that are already available. Performance wise the JMF670H is fairly similar to Silicon Motion's SM2246EN, but at the end of the day the SM2246EN wins in both performance and power efficiency, which makes it difficult for ADATA and JMicron to compete in areas other than price or features.

While utilizing higher binned MLC NAND (or "enterprise-grade" as ADATA calls it) could be considered as a differentiating feature, I don't consider NAND endurance to be a significant issue for client usage, so even though the NAND is likely higher quality than what you would find inside a BX100 for instance, it's not going to have any impact on the end-user. A five-year warranty is definitely a welcome addition, but that alone doesn't provide enough value to make the SX930 stand out, especially with Samsung offer a five-year warranty for the 850 EVO.

Amazon Price Comparison (7/16/2015)
  120/128GB 240/250/256GB 480/500/512GB
ADATA XPG SX930 (MSRP) $80 $110 $200
ADATA Premier SP610 $60 $100 $188
Crucial MX200 - $103 $180
Crucial BX100 $66 $90 $178
OCZ Trion 100 $60 $90 $180
OCZ ARC 100 $54 $89 $170
OCZ Vector 180 $80 $130 $250
Samsung 850 EVO $72 $98 $178
Samsung 850 Pro $97 $140 $251
SanDisk Ultra II $63 $95 $182
SanDisk Extreme Pro - $135 $220
Transcend SSD370 $58 $90 $176

Since the SX930 is ADATA's high-end drive, the prices aren't exactly cheap. You are looking at about $20 premium over the BX100, which is hard to justify given that the BX100 actually provides better performance. While street pricing tends to be lower than MSRPs, it's clear that the SX930 needs to be about $20 cheaper to be competitive. At equal pricing with the BX100, I might lean towards the SX930 and take a marginal hit in performance for two years of additional warranty, but I wouldn't pay $20 for the warranty alone because of the rapid developments in SSD performance and prices dropping about 20% year over year. 

I did let JMicron know about my performance concerns when I tested the JMF670H reference design samples because sequential read performance in particular was below the average. JMicron promised an improvement through an upcoming firmware update and told me that the initial firmware mostly focused on optimizing performance for benchmarks such as CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD, which typically use higher IO sizes and queue depths to extract the maximum performance out of an SSD. With a firmware better optimized for low queue depths and real world workloads, I see potential in the SX930 and JMF670H, but nevertheless it still needs to be more competitive in price in order to tackle the BX100 and 850 EVO.

Idle Power Consumption & TRIM Validation
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • sonny73n - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    LOL @EVO 3-bit NAND...
    I just threw out my 1 year old 840EVO 250GB which was the worst SSD I've ever had. MX200 500GB is in and I wish I could've got this one from the begining instead of the EVO junk.
  • Stochastic - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Just curious, what problems did you encounter?
  • fokka - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    i guess the same as so many others, which still has no real fix: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8550/samsung-acknowl...
  • Impulses - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    That's not about the 850.
  • Adding-Color - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    What not about the 850? OP was talking about the 840!
  • futrtrubl - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Actually the OP was talking about something to challenge the EVO, the latest of which is the 850.
  • Samus - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    What proof does anybody have the 850EVO is going to be any difference than the 840EVO with performance degradation. They use the same technology and only the 850PRO get's the binned, lower node 3D VNAND.
  • voicequal - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link

    The 840EVO was on ~19nm NAND. The 850EVO uses 40nm V-NAND which should provide much greater cell integrity needed for TLC operation.
  • sonny73n - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    What about the 850? After my experience with that "EVO", Samsung 3-bit TLC NAND in particular, I had lost interest and trust in Samsung. The 830 Pro 128GB I had years ago was excellent though but it took a chunk out of my pocket. So I guess when it comes to value for the money, I should always look somewhere else.
  • bug77 - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    Then you don't know that the 850 EVO has *nothing* to do with 840 EVO. Not surprising, otherwise you wouldn't have bought that PoS. The planar TLC is bottom of the barrel, with slow access and probably under 1000 P/E cycles. The 850 EVO uses 3D NAND which alleviates those issues.
    So you see, it really wasn't an 840 EVO problem, it was a planar TLC NAND problem. Many cheap drives still use that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now