G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
MSI Clutch GM31 Lightweight (+Wireless) mice review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900 processor review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 processor review
AMD Ryzen 5 7600 processor review
Plextor M10P 2TB NVMe PCIe 4.0 SSD review
Posted by: on: 09/01/2021 11:50 AM [
13 comment(s) ]
Every now and then a manufacturer manages to surprise us with something really good. And here we are, meet the new M10P from Plextor. This round it does not have a Phison PS5018-E18 controller, and as it turns out, that brings in tremendously good results closing in on 7 GB/sec.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1432
Senior Member
Posts: 1432
Posted on: 09/02/2021 12:26 AM
Thanks for the review Hilbert, interesting to see new controllers on the market!
Even if the main takeaway from SSD reviews seem to be that real-world performance differences between years-old 500GB SATA drives and bleeding edge 2TB PCIe 4.0 drives is negligible at best.
I really can't agree with that, sorry....
Prior to moving to an SSD couple of years back, my Windows 10 boot time was around 60-70 seconds from a 7200 RPM 2 TB Sata3 hard drive, to ~15-20 secs with my first SSD. Now it's 10-12 seconds for a cold boot with my NVMe 500GB Samsung 980 Pro--and it's on the slow side for the 980 Pro family. Doesn't get more real-world than booting, imo. I notice a huge difference in real-world use. The real fact seems to be if there was no real-world performance difference between SSD's and HDD's, then who would be buying SSDs of any type as they would run no faster, while being far more expensive per TB? But SSDs are being bought up rapidly. Actually, there is quite a difference in real-world performance between an NVMe SSD and a S3 HDD.
I've got some very disk-intensive games that run noticeably faster from my SSD than they do from my fastest SATA 3 HDD. Even my PCIe3 SSD is significantly faster in the real world than my fastest HDD. I have no idea where you'd get an idea like that about HDDs...? I still use HDDs--I have four of them installed right now alongside 2 NVMe SSDs, and I can honestly say the real-world performance difference is substantial--as one should immediately think it would be.
Maybe you're talking about the fact the 7GB/ps speeds possible in benchmarks for some PCIe4 SSD's doesn't equate to real world average performance but is only a theoretical performance number--and you'd be correct. But, you won't even get that theoretically out of a Sata3 HDD. Anyway...I have to disagree for reasons given.
Thanks for the review Hilbert, interesting to see new controllers on the market!
Even if the main takeaway from SSD reviews seem to be that real-world performance differences between years-old 500GB SATA drives and bleeding edge 2TB PCIe 4.0 drives is negligible at best.
I really can't agree with that, sorry....
Prior to moving to an SSD couple of years back, my Windows 10 boot time was around 60-70 seconds from a 7200 RPM 2 TB Sata3 hard drive, to ~15-20 secs with my first SSD. Now it's 10-12 seconds for a cold boot with my NVMe 500GB Samsung 980 Pro--and it's on the slow side for the 980 Pro family. Doesn't get more real-world than booting, imo. I notice a huge difference in real-world use. The real fact seems to be if there was no real-world performance difference between SSD's and HDD's, then who would be buying SSDs of any type as they would run no faster, while being far more expensive per TB? But SSDs are being bought up rapidly. Actually, there is quite a difference in real-world performance between an NVMe SSD and a S3 HDD.I've got some very disk-intensive games that run noticeably faster from my SSD than they do from my fastest SATA 3 HDD. Even my PCIe3 SSD is significantly faster in the real world than my fastest HDD. I have no idea where you'd get an idea like that about HDDs...? I still use HDDs--I have four of them installed right now alongside 2 NVMe SSDs, and I can honestly say the real-world performance difference is substantial--as one should immediately think it would be.
Maybe you're talking about the fact the 7GB/ps speeds possible in benchmarks for some PCIe4 SSD's doesn't equate to real world average performance but is only a theoretical performance number--and you'd be correct. But, you won't even get that theoretically out of a Sata3 HDD. Anyway...I have to disagree for reasons given.
thestryker
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Posted on: 09/02/2021 02:12 AM
I really can't agree with that, sorry.... Prior to moving to an SSD couple of years back, my Windows 10 boot time was around 60-70 seconds from a 7200 RPM 2 TB Sata3 hard drive, to ~15-20 secs with my first SSD. Now it's 10-12 seconds for a cold boot with my NVMe 500GB Samsung 980 Pro--and it's on the slow side for the 980 Pro family. Doesn't get more real-world than booting, imo. I notice a huge difference in real-world use. The real fact seems to be if there was no real-world performance difference between SSD's and HDD's, then who would be buying SSDs of any type as they would run no faster, while being far more expensive per TB? But SSDs are being bought up rapidly. Actually, there is quite a difference in real-world performance between an NVMe SSD and a S3 HDD.
I've got some very disk-intensive games that run noticeably faster from my SSD than they do from my fastest SATA 3 HDD. Even my PCIe3 SSD is significantly faster in the real world than my fastest HDD. I have no idea where you'd get an idea like that about HDDs...? I still use HDDs--I have four of them installed right now alongside 2 NVMe SSDs, and I can honestly say the real-world performance difference is substantial--as one should immediately think it would be.
Maybe you're talking about the fact the 7GB/ps speeds possible in benchmarks for some PCIe4 SSD's doesn't equate to real world average performance but is only a theoretical performance number--and you'd be correct. But, you won't even get that theoretically out of a Sata3 HDD. Anyway...I have to disagree for reasons given.
99.99999999% sure they're referring to SATA SSDs versus their significantly "faster" NVMe counterparts. They're not wrong either: in a chunk of real world application they're not significantly faster despite having a huge read/write advantage. This largely comes down to NAND being the limiting factor as all one has to do is look at what Optane does. The P5800X completely destroys everything on the market when it comes to random, and that's because of 3D Xpoint being significantly better than NAND.
I really can't agree with that, sorry....
Prior to moving to an SSD couple of years back, my Windows 10 boot time was around 60-70 seconds from a 7200 RPM 2 TB Sata3 hard drive, to ~15-20 secs with my first SSD. Now it's 10-12 seconds for a cold boot with my NVMe 500GB Samsung 980 Pro--and it's on the slow side for the 980 Pro family. Doesn't get more real-world than booting, imo. I notice a huge difference in real-world use. The real fact seems to be if there was no real-world performance difference between SSD's and HDD's, then who would be buying SSDs of any type as they would run no faster, while being far more expensive per TB? But SSDs are being bought up rapidly. Actually, there is quite a difference in real-world performance between an NVMe SSD and a S3 HDD.I've got some very disk-intensive games that run noticeably faster from my SSD than they do from my fastest SATA 3 HDD. Even my PCIe3 SSD is significantly faster in the real world than my fastest HDD. I have no idea where you'd get an idea like that about HDDs...? I still use HDDs--I have four of them installed right now alongside 2 NVMe SSDs, and I can honestly say the real-world performance difference is substantial--as one should immediately think it would be.
Maybe you're talking about the fact the 7GB/ps speeds possible in benchmarks for some PCIe4 SSD's doesn't equate to real world average performance but is only a theoretical performance number--and you'd be correct. But, you won't even get that theoretically out of a Sata3 HDD. Anyway...I have to disagree for reasons given.
99.99999999% sure they're referring to SATA SSDs versus their significantly "faster" NVMe counterparts. They're not wrong either: in a chunk of real world application they're not significantly faster despite having a huge read/write advantage. This largely comes down to NAND being the limiting factor as all one has to do is look at what Optane does. The P5800X completely destroys everything on the market when it comes to random, and that's because of 3D Xpoint being significantly better than NAND.
Exodite
Senior Member
Posts: 2085
Senior Member
Posts: 2085
Posted on: 09/02/2021 10:20 AM
As thestryker noted I'm talking about SSDs, not HDDs.
Looking at Hilbert's review the examples of real-world performance are all but identical between all the different stripes of SSDs, only the synthetics show any actual difference.
I don't claim there's no performance advantage over HDDs, though personally I were definitely surprised how little difference I noticed between my 5400RPM HDD and a SATA SSD. Though I only cold boot a couple of times a year, maybe that's the reason.
I really can't agree with that, sorry.... Prior to moving to an SSD couple of years back, my Windows 10 boot time was around 60-70 seconds from a 7200 RPM 2 TB Sata3 hard drive..
Prior to moving to an SSD couple of years back, my Windows 10 boot time was around 60-70 seconds from a 7200 RPM 2 TB Sata3 hard drive..As thestryker noted I'm talking about SSDs, not HDDs.
Looking at Hilbert's review the examples of real-world performance are all but identical between all the different stripes of SSDs, only the synthetics show any actual difference.
I don't claim there's no performance advantage over HDDs, though personally I were definitely surprised how little difference I noticed between my 5400RPM HDD and a SATA SSD. Though I only cold boot a couple of times a year, maybe that's the reason.
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 4478
Senior Member
Posts: 4478
Posted on: 09/02/2021 02:47 PM
I have to agree with this. I´ve just replaced my Samsung 970 Evo 500g SSD for an Western Digital SN 850 NVME 1tb and the diffferences in normal usage are basically zero, as far as i can tell.
So far the only differences i´ve noticed are in gaming, load times are significantly better now but other than that, i struggle to see any difference.
99.99999999% sure they're referring to SATA SSDs versus their significantly "faster" NVMe counterparts. They're not wrong either: in a chunk of real world application they're not significantly faster despite having a huge read/write advantage. This largely comes down to NAND being the limiting factor as all one has to do is look at what Optane does. The P5800X completely destroys everything on the market when it comes to random, and that's because of 3D Xpoint being significantly better than NAND.
I have to agree with this. I´ve just replaced my Samsung 970 Evo 500g SSD for an Western Digital SN 850 NVME 1tb and the diffferences in normal usage are basically zero, as far as i can tell.
So far the only differences i´ve noticed are in gaming, load times are significantly better now but other than that, i struggle to see any difference.
pages 1 2 3
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 3021
it feels like random read/write numbers have been stuck for 5 years.
80/266mb/s when my m9pe did 66/220mb/s on z97.
it's faster,but it's baby steps
yeah but
what do you have to say about SATA:p
seriously tho' none of that if the fault of the drive maker. that's squarely on standardization, (as seen) controller hardware, and the cost and complexity of memory holding back innovation