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.
The rated sequential speed on the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD is 7,100MB/s read and 6,200MB/s write. According to CrystalDiskMark SEQ1M Q8T1 the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD is performing as advertised. It reaches 7,235MB/s sequential read speed which is above the rated speed, and 6,183MB/s which is right at the maximum write throughput. Therefore, it does perform as advertised and meets the specification in this benchmark of sequential throughput.
Naturally, faster rated drives will show higher sequential throughput if that is their spec. The Netac NV7000-t is rated at 7,300MB/s read and 6,600MB/s write, so it does perform just a bit faster overall on sequential throughput than the Netac NV7000-Q, but both are still very close to each other. The NV7000-t has a slight write advantage. The Netac NV7000 is also a bit faster, but also rated higher, and again has a write advantage. The Netac NV7000-Q is a very competitive drive in throughput being QLC, it can reach that 7GB/s read barrier, and 6GB/s write barrier, competing with the rest in this range.
In SEQ128K Q32T1 the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD is producing the same results for read and write performance and performing as advertised.
In RND4K Q32T16 performance the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD has excellent read performance at 4,379MB/s. The Netac NV7000-Q actually beats out the Netac NV7000-t by 2% and betas the Netac NV7000 by 5% on random read performance. This boads well for random read file access.
Where the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD falls behind is in the random write performance. At 3,777MB/s it has the next to the last performance level on random writes. The Netac NV7000-Q is 14% slower than the Netac NV7000-t and 13% slower than the Netac NV7000, which had similar write performance. The Samsung 990 PRO had the best read-and-write random performance out of the bunch by a large margin.
In RND4K Q1T1 performance the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD has a strong random read performance once again at 75MB/s it beats the Netac NV7000-t and Netac NV7000. However, once again it falls behind on write performance now with the lowest random write performance in this group of SSDs, which oddly matches the Samsung 990 PRO in this test. The Netac NV7000-t has a 2% higher random write performance and the NV7000 has a 5% random write performance.
ATTO
Using the popular ATTO Disk Benchmark, the Netac NV7000-Q 1TB PCIe Gen4x4 NVMe SSD is performing next to the slowest SSD in this roundup, according to this benchmark. At 6.74GB/s the Netac NV7000-Q is 3% slower than the Netac NV7000-t and Netac NV7000 on read performance. At 5.47GB/s write it is 10% behind the Netac NV7000-t and 12% behind the Netac NV7000 on write performance, sequential.
Discussion (2 replies)
Join Discussion →More options are obviously great, but I have to admit, I am a little bit paranoid about losing my data, which is why I view drives from new brands with a lot of skepticism.
Heck, even more established brands have problems sometimes.
I mean yes, I backup all of my non-replaceable data. At least most of it, but it is still a real pain in the ass to have to re-install windows and reconfigure things when things go wrong.
I periodically dump drive images to my NAS, but realistically this does not happen every day, every week or even every month. When my 2TB Sabrent Rocket 4 died, I didn't lose any files (those were all on the NAS) but I had to revert to an 8 month old drive image. I had done some config changes since, and had some game progress in my user folder that I ultimately lost.
The biggest annoyance was the downtime. I decided to not wait for Sabrent's RMA, and just went and bought a Samsung 990 Pro at Microcenter to get myself going again immediately. When I got the Sabrent Rocket 4 back, I had some trust issues, so I only used it as a Steam library drive, figuring that if it died, worst case I'd leave my machine on overnight and download everything again. That was a good call, as that RMA drive started failing as well, and is no longer in use.
Which brings me back to Netac. Maybe they are good, maybe they aren't. This review isn't bad, but who knows what will happen after 2 years of use? I don't know. Some might trust them just because they use established Phison reference drives, but so was the Sabrent Rocket 4....
Back before I bought eh Sabrent Rocket 4 I had a philosophy of only trusting two SSD brands. Samsung, and Intel. Every other drive from every other brand I had tried (especially OCZ) had failed on me within two years. This was back in the SATA era though. The companies and controllers have changed since then, and this dataset is likely no longer relevant. Especially since Intel sold its SSD brand to SK Hynix, and Samsung has had some high profile firware bugs in its 980 Pro and 990 Pro drives causing extremely premature drive ware. (Some have also had some real problems with Samsung NVMe drives in Windows Server for some reason)
This requires establishing a new rule of thumb, which is still maturing for me.
If I require a drive that is high performance, I will probably stick to a brand that designs, develops and uses their own controllers.
Crucial/Micron, SK Hynix, WD/Sandisk, and yeah, Samsung (though with less confidence than in the past).
Samsung drives still perform better than anyhting else out there on the market (other than discontinued Optane drives) likely in large part due to very high 4k random read performance.
If Intel's Optane DC 5800x drives ever come down in price to more sane levels, I'll be snapping up one of those too.
I have yet to test any Crucial/Micron or SK Hynix drives, though I want to at some point. I have been putting a pair of 4TB WD Black SN850x drives through their paces, and they seem very reliable and perform well. This may become a go-to brand for my NVMe buying in the future.
As for these budget brand engineered Phison reference design drives, they have their place.
I've actually had really good luck with my twelve old Inland Premium drives ranging in size from 256GB up to 2TB. I have absolutely hammered them without ever having a bad issue, and no eexcessive drive wear. They appear to be reference Phison E12 drives manufactured by Team for Microcenter (Inland is Microcenters in house brand) The Inland Premium drives had a very good reputation out there on the forums though, which is why I was willing to give them a chance. Sadly, while there are other rebadged Inland branded reference drives, the "Inland Premium" models which were well regarded seem to ahve been discontinued.
As for other budget unknown brand reference Phison design drives, I'd probably only use them as a Steam library drive on a cheap gaming system. At least unless associated with the large volume of positive long term reviews from actual users on forums I trust the Inland Premiums got. That minimises risks.
Brent, this looks like both the flash and the controller (and its firmware) are produced in China by a Chinese company, correct? They've got the whole stack in house, a la Samsung?
Also nice to see QLC flash being mostly competitive outside of sustained high-speed write scenarios, which is useful for most consumers when price is a factor.