Conclusion page: the paragraph "The performance differences between the Plextor M8Pe and the Toshiba OCZ RD400..." is repeated. BRO DO YOU EVEN EDITOR?
I think the problem may have been too much editor. My browser was getting really laggy and unresponsive while I was finishing up the article and rearranging things.
Whoa there are still readers here? hah, I was cleaning out my bookmarks and saw anandtech. You realize all the talent left ages ago right? This site is dead. They're just riding on the name now...
Keep in mind that the 960 EVO results here are for the 1TB model, and that kind of capacity advantage usually brings some performance advantage, too. But yeah, once the 960 EVO is actually shipping in volume, a lot of prices will probably have to come down. Unless the 960 EVO price goes up.
Prices for Samsung SSDs are rising due to the NAND shortage. If Plextor manages to resist this trend they might do well. After all most current workloads don't need anywhere near that kind of level of performance so a slight performance disadvantage is tolerable as long as it's reflected in the price.
It's simply a supply and demand issue. Other causes are manufacturing process adjustments and lower yield issues often associated with transitioning to new processes.
However, the shortage isn't as dire as 'close' makes it seem. Drive prices aren't necessarily increasing because of the shortage, but they aren't falling as they should be with the density improvements associated with TLC and widespread adoption of 3D VNAND. Samsung drives are increasing in price because vendors have noticed sharper demand for them than other drive, and I'm sure you can guess why based on this article alone...I'm not a Samsung fan, but they are currently the most balanced SSD products on the consumer market.
And this fits perfectly with the price trends for some SSDs. Crucial/Micron is a nice holdout but probably because of the in-house NAND manufacturing.
On a slightly unrelated note, while I consider Samsung's drives to deliver the highest performance (and use them because of this), I wouldn't say they are most balanced because of the price and implicitly the price/performance ratio. I still go with SanDisk and Crucial wherever top range performance isn't critical because I think they offer a lot more value.
Seems like you guys should be comparing every capacity of ssd when doing reviews, if samsung sends you only the 1tb version tell them where are the other two, because clearly they will be slower.
Yes, and this could be played the other way, too. When Plextor sends in a 512GB drive, let them know that they'll be benched against a 1TB Samsung and will be at a disadvantage.
In the specific case of the 960 EVO, Samsung sent me a 1TB and a 250GB sample. The 250GB died, but I'm currently writing up the review of the replacement.
Most of the companies and PR people I deal with are very understanding of my desire to test the full range of capacities. But for many product launches, the PR departments simply don't get enough supply to satisfy us reviewers. I can't even say that the executives several levels up who make those allocation decisions are wrong. Most of their benefit comes from the initial exposure of having the SSD reviewed at all. Providing a wider range of samples means they'll get mentioned more frequently as a point of comparison in future reviews, but that's a tough sell when it means a retailer like Newegg is more likely to run out before their second shipment comes in.
Some companies have indicated that they'd be open to providing further samples post-launch when supply is no longer constrained. But I'm not in a good position to ask for that when I still have a backlog of drives that haven't gotten a first review.
Also, don't be fooled by MSRP. I got the bare version of the Plextor for under $200 from Newegg recently. I wouldn't have been able to justify going PCIe with any other product I examined at the time.
The 512GB M8Pe was $180 on Newegg over Black Friday, which made it a pretty easy choice for me. Keep an eye out over the holidays, I wouldn't be surprised to see it and the RD400 go on sale pretty significantly.
I did the same thing. And to clarify, it was the GN model, without the heat spreader. Aside from having a difficult time getting my Linux install copied over and booting properly, been happy with it, but haven't really stressed it yet.
From a real-world perspective, are we at the point where we (meaning "the majority of humans") can tell the difference between an M.2 PCI-E and SATA drive during normal usage?
I ask because I'm using a 1 GB ADATA drive that I picked up for $220 last year and it was a decent upgrade over my Crucial M4. I wonder if the jump from SATA to PCI-E is likewise noticeable.
Considering your ADATA is quite small at just 1 GB, these will be a noticeable upgrade. Starting from a 1 TB drive, though, will likely not be noticeable (unless you're running significantly I/O limited workloads).
Assuming you meant 1TB rather than 1 GB. Can the majority of humans tell the difference? I can't speak to what the majority can tell but I can state my personal experience. My main system drive is currently a 250 GB 850 EVO. I've also had an opportunity to (though briefly) to use a system with a 950 Pro in it. For anything that I personally do, no, I could not tell the difference. Of course I don't do anything particularly storage intensive either. I'm most concerned with boot up time and how fast programs open, etc.
To me, given pricing as it exists today, there are only really three drives mentioned that I would even think about. Assuming you need an m.2 form factor (which I currently don't so will stick with my 850 EVO) 960 Pro if you want the best performance available, 960 EVO if you want great upscale performance at a reasonable price, and the Intel 600 P if you don't need great performance but do need the M.2 form factor. But if the prices change it may well be possible to just buy the cheapest in the particular performance class you want.
Thanks to both of you. I did mean 1 TB, my bad. I have one of the DAN cases and will be building it out in Jan/Feb, that's why I asked. Looks like I'm sticking with SATA unless prices come down. Mayyyyybe the 960 EVO.
No, 99% of the use cases won't show tangible improvement. SATA SSDs are already fast enough to eliminate storage as a bottleneck. You may have TB\sec and it will still not make a difference if the bottleneck is somewhere else.
I think it's just an alternate power delivery path for situations where the PCIe slot doesn't provide enough. I didn't bother using it, since I was measuring power consumption through the PCIe slot.
When are you going to redo new drives like the 960 Pro/Evo and RD400 with the angelbird wings PX1 so we can see how and if oerformance improves with a heatsink?
Last year AT had redone benches from the 950 pro this way.
At the moment, I'm more concerned with putting together an updated test suite for 2017. Once that's ready and everything's been re-tested, I'll go back and test the 960s with a heatsink. It'll probably be February, and probably won't be worth an article of its own.
We already have the RD400A results in Bench, and the one thermal pad behind the controller that it uses was enough to eliminate thermal throttling (with one possible exception).
The add-in PCIE card appears to be the best thing about the SSD. Just looking at how much faster the drive was with the heatsink, makes me want the PCIE card but with a 960 EVO or PRO in it.
I'm hoping that PCIE slot storage takes off. Now that we've largely eliminated optical drives and floppies have been dead for ages, it's only a matter of time before we can shed conventional hard drive bays from computers too. Yeah, I know some small form factor systems have already reached that point (which is pretty cool) but it'd be nice to see that become the norm in mainstream systems as well. There's nothing more annoying than a huge, clunkly computer case and once 3.5 and 2.5 inch drives are gone, the only thing holding us back will be graphics adapters.
Someone already makes a pretty nice looking heatsink card that looks like it wouldn't block much of the video card above it. I think I'm going to get one for my 960 Pro.
Horrible Review Many of you think I'm a Troll but can you answer 3 simple questions from the data provided?
1. What is the average Read Speed in MB/sec for a 100GB file of Non Compressible Test Data?
2. What is the average Write Speed in MB/sec for a 100GB file of Non Compressible Test Data?
3. and most importantly, what is the average Copy and paste speed in MB/sec for a single 100GB non compressible test file when copying and pasting to the same drive?
I test actual numbers with a consistent hardware/software combination
If I get new hardware and software and the results for a specific SSD change by 1.7%, I can correct for the the new hardware/software for ALL of the SSD's tested without running new tests
With Synthetic benchmarks we cannot guarantee the accuracy between tests but more importantly the consistency between tests whenever you change test machines with different hardware/software/driver combo's
I can correct my results for different hardware and get reliably consistent results
You Cannot! So you call ME the Retard?
You just don't get what it is that you just don't get
"With Synthetic benchmarks we cannot guarantee..."
Just like you've done in the past, you're advocating a controversial position you know will generate responses so you can get attention. Even if it's negative attention, you're still seeking it out.
Can you show how these Synthetic Benchmarks relate to actual timed file transfers for accuracy?
If not, you are zero for three as well
Try comparing ACTUAL TIMED TRANSFERS for the copy/paste test I outlined on ANY SSD you currently own and compare it to the results given for synthetic results at this site!
By insisting on "TIMED TRANSFERS", do you imply this would be a better than reporting the average throughput? Keep in mind that determining the throughput requires a time measurement. the result is just normalized to the amount of transfered data to make it universally useful (not everyone is interested in monolithic 100 GB files).
And you talk a lot about accuracy and repeatability. Well, I suspect the benchmarks from AT are just that. However, what is not accurate and repeatable is if I do just what you said: take any random computer and run that copy test. Things influencing such a test, to a varying degree:
- software used for copying - filling state of the SSD - wear of the NAND - interface version used (SATA2?) - mainboard: controller hardware & firmware - OS - storage driver - additional caching software - background activity (e.g. how many tabs are open in the browser? how is the add blocker configured?)
This list is not complete, of course. So when is a test meaningful, real world and simple enough for you? When it matches your system in each of those points? Then you won't find a single satisfying review on the web, unless you create it yourself. But be aware that your results won't apply directly to others, so people will complain that you tested in a strange way.
Quote: By insisting on "TIMED TRANSFERS", do you imply this would be a better than reporting the average throughput? --------------------------------- If I time the transfer of 100GB in 66.66 seconds, I get 1500MB/sec average throughput so not sure of your point there
1GB / 10GB / 100GB or whatever, as long as the same value is used between drives under test to get a valid comparison between drives on the same hardware + Software (No additional Caching)
The rest of your argument is valid, You may pass!
Synthetic testing may be fine for you but the numbers are meaningless for me
This is amazing! Tiny 128GB SSDs for $0.64/GB! And look at that 1TB for $0.51/GB! We even get to use a crappy Microsoft bundled driver for these! Who knows, in 2017 we may even get to see consumer SSDs reach $0.80, $0.90 or even $1+ per GB... Time doesn't stand still and neither does the endless march of progress. Brace yourselves guys, the future's going to be an amazing place.
What is a the reason that PCIe SSDs consume more power than SATA SSDs? Is it simply the higher speeds? The review covered the sleep state issues with the PCIe drives but when the drives are in a similar state, the SATA drives appear to be much more power efficient.
I think the biggest problem is that the NVMe power saving states I'm testing don't include reducing the PCIe link speed or width. Keeping a PCIe 3.0 x4 link lit up takes a significant amount of power. The SATA drives by contrast are being told to put the SATA link in a low power state and take that as the signal to engage internal power saving mechanisms.
Thanks for the great review Billy. I've been holding off on buying the Plextor for my new build hoping that Anandtech would put up a review and you guys delivered. Looks like they are solid drives at a mediocre price point. I knew I should have bought the 512 version when the egg had it for 179...sigh...oh well I can wait.
The Corsair MP500 uses the Phison E7 controller. Next week I should have a review up of the Patriot Hellfire that is essentially the same drive. It's slower than the M8Pe on almost every test.
"The M8Pe's consistency scores are quite low, indicating that it lacks the tight regulation of Samsung and Intel's best drives that have similar average performance."
This is rather misleading and shows again the little alue your consistency metric brings. In the case of the Plextor, it has a well defined floor around 25kops and bursts of speed above that. Although it makes it inconsistent, it has a high minimum. This would be like complaining that a core i7 with turbo boost is inconsistent, because although it has a 4GHz floor, it sometimes boosts to 4.5GHz when possible and as such is worse than a constant i3 at 2GHz...
Who would buy 1TB variant w/ a heatsink for $650 when one can take 1TB bare plus 128GB w/ a heatsink for $616 ($516 + $100). Then transfer the heatsink and the drive is still $34 cheaper and the 128GB remains remains as a free bonus:-)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
64 Comments
Back to Article
The_Assimilator - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Conclusion page: the paragraph "The performance differences between the Plextor M8Pe and the Toshiba OCZ RD400..." is repeated. BRO DO YOU EVEN EDITOR?Billy Tallis - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I think the problem may have been too much editor. My browser was getting really laggy and unresponsive while I was finishing up the article and rearranging things.Threnx - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Whoa there are still readers here? hah, I was cleaning out my bookmarks and saw anandtech. You realize all the talent left ages ago right? This site is dead. They're just riding on the name now...cbrownx88 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
@Threnx - where do you go now since Anandtech is a shell of its former glory?TemjinGold - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
So... it basically loses across the board to the EVO but they want to charge more for it?Billy Tallis - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Keep in mind that the 960 EVO results here are for the 1TB model, and that kind of capacity advantage usually brings some performance advantage, too. But yeah, once the 960 EVO is actually shipping in volume, a lot of prices will probably have to come down. Unless the 960 EVO price goes up.close - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Prices for Samsung SSDs are rising due to the NAND shortage. If Plextor manages to resist this trend they might do well. After all most current workloads don't need anywhere near that kind of level of performance so a slight performance disadvantage is tolerable as long as it's reflected in the price.BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I wasn't aware of a NAND shortage. Do you happen to know the cause?Samus - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
It's simply a supply and demand issue. Other causes are manufacturing process adjustments and lower yield issues often associated with transitioning to new processes.However, the shortage isn't as dire as 'close' makes it seem. Drive prices aren't necessarily increasing because of the shortage, but they aren't falling as they should be with the density improvements associated with TLC and widespread adoption of 3D VNAND. Samsung drives are increasing in price because vendors have noticed sharper demand for them than other drive, and I'm sure you can guess why based on this article alone...I'm not a Samsung fan, but they are currently the most balanced SSD products on the consumer market.
BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Ah that makes sense. Thanks!close - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
I'm not at all sure how dire the shortage is but there's plenty of online material for this. Of course, the titles might be apocalyptic but you can get a sense that it's not something to shrug off quite yet:http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20161212VL201.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-hdd-shortage-nan...
https://www.custompcreview.com/news/nand-flash-pri...
https://epsnews.com/2016/10/12/supply-shortage-nan...
And this fits perfectly with the price trends for some SSDs. Crucial/Micron is a nice holdout but probably because of the in-house NAND manufacturing.
On a slightly unrelated note, while I consider Samsung's drives to deliver the highest performance (and use them because of this), I wouldn't say they are most balanced because of the price and implicitly the price/performance ratio. I still go with SanDisk and Crucial wherever top range performance isn't critical because I think they offer a lot more value.
jabber - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
There is always a 'shortage' yet life and sales go on. Just market FUD too manipulate prices. Never seems to push through to retail much.shabby - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Seems like you guys should be comparing every capacity of ssd when doing reviews, if samsung sends you only the 1tb version tell them where are the other two, because clearly they will be slower.Mr Perfect - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Yes, and this could be played the other way, too. When Plextor sends in a 512GB drive, let them know that they'll be benched against a 1TB Samsung and will be at a disadvantage.Bruce427 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
The reason for the 1TB Samsung 960 EVO (only) is, at the time that 's all Samsung was shipping. I'm sure reviews on other models will follow soon.Billy Tallis - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
In the specific case of the 960 EVO, Samsung sent me a 1TB and a 250GB sample. The 250GB died, but I'm currently writing up the review of the replacement.Most of the companies and PR people I deal with are very understanding of my desire to test the full range of capacities. But for many product launches, the PR departments simply don't get enough supply to satisfy us reviewers. I can't even say that the executives several levels up who make those allocation decisions are wrong. Most of their benefit comes from the initial exposure of having the SSD reviewed at all. Providing a wider range of samples means they'll get mentioned more frequently as a point of comparison in future reviews, but that's a tough sell when it means a retailer like Newegg is more likely to run out before their second shipment comes in.
Some companies have indicated that they'd be open to providing further samples post-launch when supply is no longer constrained. But I'm not in a good position to ask for that when I still have a backlog of drives that haven't gotten a first review.
epobirs - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Also, don't be fooled by MSRP. I got the bare version of the Plextor for under $200 from Newegg recently. I wouldn't have been able to justify going PCIe with any other product I examined at the time.aeolist - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
The 512GB M8Pe was $180 on Newegg over Black Friday, which made it a pretty easy choice for me. Keep an eye out over the holidays, I wouldn't be surprised to see it and the RD400 go on sale pretty significantly.icrf - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I did the same thing. And to clarify, it was the GN model, without the heat spreader. Aside from having a difficult time getting my Linux install copied over and booting properly, been happy with it, but haven't really stressed it yet.sinPiEqualsZero - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
From a real-world perspective, are we at the point where we (meaning "the majority of humans") can tell the difference between an M.2 PCI-E and SATA drive during normal usage?I ask because I'm using a 1 GB ADATA drive that I picked up for $220 last year and it was a decent upgrade over my Crucial M4. I wonder if the jump from SATA to PCI-E is likewise noticeable.
MrSpadge - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Considering your ADATA is quite small at just 1 GB, these will be a noticeable upgrade. Starting from a 1 TB drive, though, will likely not be noticeable (unless you're running significantly I/O limited workloads).Ratman6161 - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Assuming you meant 1TB rather than 1 GB. Can the majority of humans tell the difference? I can't speak to what the majority can tell but I can state my personal experience. My main system drive is currently a 250 GB 850 EVO. I've also had an opportunity to (though briefly) to use a system with a 950 Pro in it. For anything that I personally do, no, I could not tell the difference. Of course I don't do anything particularly storage intensive either. I'm most concerned with boot up time and how fast programs open, etc.To me, given pricing as it exists today, there are only really three drives mentioned that I would even think about. Assuming you need an m.2 form factor (which I currently don't so will stick with my 850 EVO) 960 Pro if you want the best performance available, 960 EVO if you want great upscale performance at a reasonable price, and the Intel 600 P if you don't need great performance but do need the M.2 form factor. But if the prices change it may well be possible to just buy the cheapest in the particular performance class you want.
sinPiEqualsZero - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Thanks to both of you. I did mean 1 TB, my bad. I have one of the DAN cases and will be building it out in Jan/Feb, that's why I asked. Looks like I'm sticking with SATA unless prices come down. Mayyyyybe the 960 EVO.Bruce427 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
** [get] the Intel 600 P if you don't need great performance but do need the M.2 form factor. **Currently, the MyDigital BPX NVMe drives will significantly outperform the 600Ps, and for less money.
They also use MLC flash and have a full 5 year warranty.
I have several 950 Pros. I recently bought/installed a 240GB BPX for benchmarking/testing and at $107.85 (what I paid) it's a great little drive.
Death666Angel - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
MyDigital doesn't have European retailers it seems? At least nothing but one listing in Germany for a BP4. :/ddriver - Saturday, December 17, 2016 - link
No, 99% of the use cases won't show tangible improvement. SATA SSDs are already fast enough to eliminate storage as a bottleneck. You may have TB\sec and it will still not make a difference if the bottleneck is somewhere else.peterfares - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Why is there a power connector on top?Billy Tallis - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I think it's just an alternate power delivery path for situations where the PCIe slot doesn't provide enough. I didn't bother using it, since I was measuring power consumption through the PCIe slot.XabanakFanatik - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
When are you going to redo new drives like the 960 Pro/Evo and RD400 with the angelbird wings PX1 so we can see how and if oerformance improves with a heatsink?Last year AT had redone benches from the 950 pro this way.
Billy Tallis - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
At the moment, I'm more concerned with putting together an updated test suite for 2017. Once that's ready and everything's been re-tested, I'll go back and test the 960s with a heatsink. It'll probably be February, and probably won't be worth an article of its own.We already have the RD400A results in Bench, and the one thermal pad behind the controller that it uses was enough to eliminate thermal throttling (with one possible exception).
TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
The add-in PCIE card appears to be the best thing about the SSD. Just looking at how much faster the drive was with the heatsink, makes me want the PCIE card but with a 960 EVO or PRO in it.BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
I'm hoping that PCIE slot storage takes off. Now that we've largely eliminated optical drives and floppies have been dead for ages, it's only a matter of time before we can shed conventional hard drive bays from computers too. Yeah, I know some small form factor systems have already reached that point (which is pretty cool) but it'd be nice to see that become the norm in mainstream systems as well. There's nothing more annoying than a huge, clunkly computer case and once 3.5 and 2.5 inch drives are gone, the only thing holding us back will be graphics adapters.XabanakFanatik - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
Someone already makes a pretty nice looking heatsink card that looks like it wouldn't block much of the video card above it. I think I'm going to get one for my 960 Pro.http://preview.tinyurl.com/h2435pf
fanofanand - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
This review is a terrific reminder of just how bad the 600p sucks. Nice write-up Billy, very informative.Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
NoFanOfAnandHorrible Review
Many of you think I'm a Troll but can you answer 3 simple questions from the data provided?
1. What is the average Read Speed in MB/sec for a 100GB file of Non Compressible Test Data?
2. What is the average Write Speed in MB/sec for a 100GB file of Non Compressible Test Data?
3. and most importantly, what is the average Copy and paste speed in MB/sec for a single 100GB non compressible test file when copying and pasting to the same drive?
Can you answer these simple questions?
Billy?
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
"All of you know I'm a Troll but can you answer 3 stupid questions..."Fixed that for you. :3
Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Good try Crayon but you're zero for threeAnyone else wanna try?
Cmon, isn't there anyone here smarter than a fucking crayon?
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
I've gotten far enough under your skin that you're keeping imaginary score to feel better.Holliday75 - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
I don't remember Bullwinkle being such a jerk. He was a nice moose.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
He was a nice moose, but I admit I liked the squirrel with the flying helmet a bit more. :3DigitalFreak - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Bullwinkle was actually a bit retarded, so the username fits.Bullwinkle J Moose - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
My dear Mr Freak,I test actual numbers with a consistent hardware/software combination
If I get new hardware and software and the results for a specific SSD change by 1.7%, I can correct for the the new hardware/software for ALL of the SSD's tested without running new tests
With Synthetic benchmarks we cannot guarantee the accuracy between tests but more importantly the consistency between tests whenever you change test machines with different hardware/software/driver combo's
I can correct my results for different hardware and get reliably consistent results
You Cannot!
So you call ME the Retard?
You just don't get what it is that you just don't get
Meteor2 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Watch your mouth. Until then, people won't respect you.BrokenCrayons - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
"With Synthetic benchmarks we cannot guarantee..."Just like you've done in the past, you're advocating a controversial position you know will generate responses so you can get attention. Even if it's negative attention, you're still seeking it out.
MrSpadge - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10909/the-plextor-m8...1. Sequential read, QD1: 1500 MB/s
2. Sequential write, QD1: 1100 MB/s
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10909/the-plextor-m8...
3. Mixed sequential transfers, 50:50 distribution, QD1: 450 MB/s
Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
MrSpadgeCan you show how these Synthetic Benchmarks relate to actual timed file transfers for accuracy?
If not, you are zero for three as well
Try comparing ACTUAL TIMED TRANSFERS for the copy/paste test I outlined on ANY SSD you currently own and compare it to the results given for synthetic results at this site!
Are they consistently repeatable and reliable?
How far off are they?
ZERO FOR THREE!
NEXT!
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
I see you're trying to boost your self-esteem by attempting to discredit someone that tried to help you.Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Simply repeating incorrect numbers from a synthetic benchmark is no help to anyoneIf you want to at least make the numbers sound believable, try
1483.8 MB/s read
1136.9 MB/s write
437.2 MB/s mixed
not 1500 / 1100 / 450
still wrong but more believable
ZERO FOR THREE!
MrSpadge - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
By insisting on "TIMED TRANSFERS", do you imply this would be a better than reporting the average throughput? Keep in mind that determining the throughput requires a time measurement. the result is just normalized to the amount of transfered data to make it universally useful (not everyone is interested in monolithic 100 GB files).And you talk a lot about accuracy and repeatability. Well, I suspect the benchmarks from AT are just that. However, what is not accurate and repeatable is if I do just what you said: take any random computer and run that copy test. Things influencing such a test, to a varying degree:
- software used for copying
- filling state of the SSD
- wear of the NAND
- interface version used (SATA2?)
- mainboard: controller hardware & firmware
- OS
- storage driver
- additional caching software
- background activity (e.g. how many tabs are open in the browser? how is the add blocker configured?)
This list is not complete, of course. So when is a test meaningful, real world and simple enough for you? When it matches your system in each of those points? Then you won't find a single satisfying review on the web, unless you create it yourself. But be aware that your results won't apply directly to others, so people will complain that you tested in a strange way.
Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Quote: By insisting on "TIMED TRANSFERS", do you imply this would be a better than reporting the average throughput?---------------------------------
If I time the transfer of 100GB in 66.66 seconds, I get 1500MB/sec average throughput so not
sure of your point there
1GB / 10GB / 100GB or whatever, as long as the same value is used between drives under test to get a valid comparison between drives on the same hardware + Software (No additional Caching)
The rest of your argument is valid, You may pass!
Synthetic testing may be fine for you but the numbers are meaningless for me
Go with whatever works for you
Magichands8 - Wednesday, December 14, 2016 - link
This is amazing! Tiny 128GB SSDs for $0.64/GB! And look at that 1TB for $0.51/GB! We even get to use a crappy Microsoft bundled driver for these! Who knows, in 2017 we may even get to see consumer SSDs reach $0.80, $0.90 or even $1+ per GB... Time doesn't stand still and neither does the endless march of progress. Brace yourselves guys, the future's going to be an amazing place.ironwing - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
What is a the reason that PCIe SSDs consume more power than SATA SSDs? Is it simply the higher speeds? The review covered the sleep state issues with the PCIe drives but when the drives are in a similar state, the SATA drives appear to be much more power efficient.Billy Tallis - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
I think the biggest problem is that the NVMe power saving states I'm testing don't include reducing the PCIe link speed or width. Keeping a PCIe 3.0 x4 link lit up takes a significant amount of power. The SATA drives by contrast are being told to put the SATA link in a low power state and take that as the signal to engage internal power saving mechanisms.bbhaag - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Thanks for the great review Billy. I've been holding off on buying the Plextor for my new build hoping that Anandtech would put up a review and you guys delivered. Looks like they are solid drives at a mediocre price point. I knew I should have bought the 512 version when the egg had it for 179...sigh...oh well I can wait.DigitalFreak - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
$50 price difference for a heatsink? Really?Bruce427 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
I think that price includes a PCIe card as well.Bruce427 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
At first glance at published specks, it appears that the New Corsair MP500 NVMe drive may outperform the PlextorM8Pe for about the same price.Bruce427 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Sorry, spell check got me. That should have been "specs."Bruce427 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
"specs"Billy Tallis - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
The Corsair MP500 uses the Phison E7 controller. Next week I should have a review up of the Patriot Hellfire that is essentially the same drive. It's slower than the M8Pe on almost every test.GoMoeJoe - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Nand shortages ... L o L ...So much fake news. So much WoW !
frenchy_2001 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
"The M8Pe's consistency scores are quite low, indicating that it lacks the tight regulation of Samsung and Intel's best drives that have similar average performance."This is rather misleading and shows again the little alue your consistency metric brings.
In the case of the Plextor, it has a well defined floor around 25kops and bursts of speed above that. Although it makes it inconsistent, it has a high minimum.
This would be like complaining that a core i7 with turbo boost is inconsistent, because although it has a 4GHz floor, it sometimes boosts to 4.5GHz when possible and as such is worse than a constant i3 at 2GHz...
MrSpadge - Monday, December 19, 2016 - link
Billy is saying just that in the next paragraph. If you read both together it's like "graph A indicates... however, graph B show that it's really..."helvete - Wednesday, January 11, 2017 - link
Who would buy 1TB variant w/ a heatsink for $650 when one can take 1TB bare plus 128GB w/ a heatsink for $616 ($516 + $100). Then transfer the heatsink and the drive is still $34 cheaper and the 128GB remains remains as a free bonus:-)