Throughput Benchmarks (SEQ and RND)

CrystalDiskMark

We are using CrystalDiskMark to benchmark sequential and random throughput of read and write performance. For these NVMe SSDs, we are using the NVMe profile in CrystalDiskMark. This tests SEQ1M Q8T1, SEQ128K Q32T1, RND4K Q32T16, and RND4K Q1T1.

Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 500GB CrystalDiskMark

In CrystalDiskMark SEQ1M Q8T1 we are looking at read and write performance, and the Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB is coming out on top here. The quoted sequential read speed is 3500MB/s, we aren’t quite hitting that theoretical maximum read, but we are coming close. It’s just a slight advantage over the Samsung 970 EVO 1TB, and on par with the ADATA XPG SX8100 read. In terms of write, the 970 EVO Plus is rated at 3200MB/s, and we are hitting 2697MB/s, which is shy of that mark. However, compared to the other SSDs it is the fastest write performance. It also beats the Samsung 970 EVO 1TB by 7% faster on write speeds.

Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 500GB CrystalDiskMark

We pretty much see the same pattern in SEQ128K Q32T1 tests, except the Teamgroup MP34 and ADATA XPG SX8100, falls backwards a bit more, especially in write performance. Write performance is much improved on the Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB SSD.

Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 500GB CrystalDiskMark

This graph is quite drastic, in RND4K Q32T16 performance. The Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB is vastly faster in write performance, especially compared to the Teamgroup MP34 and ADATA XPG SX8100. Compared to the Samsung 970 EVO 1TB the write performance is 21% faster with the updated Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB, that’s pretty major. Random read performance falls behind the other drives, but this could be related to higher latencies.

Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe M.2 SSD 500GB CrystalDiskMark

In RND4K Q1T1 performance we are seeing the older Samsung 970 EVO 1TB perform faster on write performance, and this could be simply down to the difference in DRAM cache sizing or SLC cache sizing. The read speed is pretty much the same between the drives.

Brent Justice

Brent Justice has been reviewing computer components for 20+ years, educated in the art and method of the computer hardware review he brings experience, knowledge, and hands-on testing with a gamer oriented...

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. Not a bad little drive, and they have come down significantly in price.

    Right now I am struggling when it comes to what drive to use for an SSD cache drive on a server, where constant heavy writes are a factor.

    WAY back I would have had to pay big bucks for a tiny SLC drive for something like this. Can’t find those anymore.

    More recently Samsung’s Pro drives were MLC and had some pretty serious write endurance.

    The latest gen Pro drives (980 Pro) now appear to be TLC, and it has me a little concerned.

    That said, these things are so cheap now, so maybe I’ll just get a couple of 500GB or 1TB Inland Premium drives for $59.99 or $119.99 respectively, and just beat the crap out of them until they are worn out and replace them.

  2. The 860 Pro drives are MLC, and MLC is def the way to go for write endurance, they may be SATA, but if you are after that endurance prices are cheaper now on them. You are right, Samsung has gone a little backwards with the 980 Pro, being TLC, Pro to me always meant MLC on Samsung, not happy with that trend.
  3. The 860 Pro drives are MLC, and MLC is def the way to go for write endurance, they may be SATA, but if you are after that endurance prices are cheaper now on them. You are right, Samsung has gone a little backwards with the 980 Pro, being TLC, Pro to me always meant MLC on Samsung, not happy with that trend.

    Yeah, I am torn.

    The truth is, that with each generation of controller, NAND quality and whatever magic makes the controllers work (write amplification, wear balancing, DRAM cache’s etc.) improves. There is a reason you essentially can’t buy an SLC drive anymore. They just aren’t necessary. MLC got better to the point where it could fill that role.

    The question is, have we gotten to the point where TLC is really ready to supplant MLC in high write applications?

    My old 512GB Samsun 850 Pro SATA drives I have been using as write cache for years are MLC and are rated at 150TBW each. At 69,000 power on hours, and 317110382829 LBA’s (~147.6 TB) written they are both listed at a wear leveling count of 30%, so they are starting to get close. (well, I mean, if 70% wear came in 69000 hours, that means I have ~30,000 hours or 3.5 years left, but I don’t want to push it TOO far)

    The aforementioned Inland Premium drives are Phison E12 TLC drives. The 512GB model (to keep it as close to an "apples to apples" comparison as possible) is rated at over 5x the write endurance, at 780TBW.

    If these numbers are accurate, and measured the same way Samsung did on my old 850 Pro’s, maybe MLC really is no longer needed? I mean those old MLC 850 Pro’s are going to give me a projected final lifespan of 11.25 years in my high write environment. If the Inland Premiums truly get 5.2x longer life, that should give me 58.5 years. I don’t know if I’ll be around in 2080 (probably not unless we see some amazing medical progress!), but I suspect my current server build will be long obsolete…

Leave a comment