Deja vu on reading in the specifications page. A few things reiterated and not sure if that was meant to be.

SweenJM:

seems like it would have been a good candidate for sata-express.........but beginning to doubt it will ever come around, given the prevalence of u.2 and m.2.

Optane is the only interesting u.2 option at the moment, m.2 seems to have won the post SATA III interface competition. Its funny that you mention SATA-express because I don't think I have even thought about it for more than a year. As m.2 drives keep getting larger it is hard to imagine that u.2 will survive much longer on consumer class boards joining SATA-express in the interface graveyard.

Hilbert, are you using the latest meltdown/spectre patches? 4k read seem a bit low, that's why i'm asking

eddieobscurant:

Hilbert, are you using the latest meltdown/spectre patches? 4k read seem a bit low, that's why i'm asking

50,5MB/s 4k rr @qd=1 is not slow in CDM for an sata ssd. It's the fastes there is. Only samsung M.2 nvme is beating it, and Optane 😛

nizzen:

50,5MB/s 4k rr @qd=1 is not slow in CDM for an sata ssd. It's the fastes there is. Only samsung M.2 nvme is beating it, and Optane 😛

Maybe my memory playing tricks on me but i remembered values around 55-60mb/s and for the samsung nvme drives around 60-65mb/s. On the other hand maybe i'm wrong and those numbers were on empty drives without os and all power saving features disabled.

eddieobscurant:

Hilbert, are you using the latest meltdown/spectre patches? 4k read seem a bit low, that's why i'm asking

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Samsung releases its 860 PRO series as well, a 6 Gb/s SSD range available from 250GB up-to a whopping 4 Terabyte this new revision is fabbed with 64-cell layer V-NAND and their new MJX controller and ... Samsung 860 PRO 2TB SSD review

So, Hilbert , was the system patched for meltdown/spectre ?

No, I have been thinking long and hard about how to deal with that. For now, the test system has not been patched, and I'll likely not do so either. It would invalidate all other (hundred or so) SSD results. Also, Intel isn't done patching ergo the results as far as I am concerned the patch results are still not final and could change. By the time everything is final, likely the results would be invalidated once again. Next, to that, I would hope that next-gen future Intel procs do not have the vulnerabilities. And once they release these - we'd need to retest all SSDs again with the results being returning to the current scores as they are right now. Hope that made any sense. In short, for now, I am sticking to unpatched results.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

No, I have been thinking long and hard about how to deal with that. .... Hope that made any sense. In short, for now, I am sticking to unpatched results.

Ok, thanks. I guess i was wrong about the results. On future reviews just mention it in the hardware and software used page.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

No, I have been thinking long and hard about how to deal with that. ... for now, I am sticking to unpatched results.

Since it is very likely that both Intel and MS will be refining these fixes you are making the right decision. The performance impact today (if any) likely wont be the final impact.