Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Monitoring Transfers With hIOmon's Disk I/O Ranger

Plextor M5 Pro 256 GB Review: 19 nm NAND And Marvell's Latest
By

With ASU behind us, we dive into hIOmon, which helps rate the performance of file transfers and application installations using a “Data Transferred/Time Index (DXTI).” This gives us a high-level means for comparing I/O performance. A higher index corresponds to better performance (more data transferred and/or lower response time).

The hIOmon DXTI is calculated by taking the observed amount of data transferred, using the I/O operations converted to megabytes for scaling, and dividing by the combined sum of the actual response times of those same I/O operations. What you end up with is a lot like a car's fuel economy index insofar as it conveys performance efficiency. It is comparable to more miles driven (more data transferred) for fuel used (response time taken to transfer this data). Or, it could represent the same number of miles driven (data transferred) using less fuel (lower response time).

This software can be configured to monitor at the physical volume level, located between the file system and the volume manager. This gives us an indication of I/O performance below the file system and closer to the storage device within the constraints of the operating system.

The procedure we run through goes as follows:

  1. Copy MP3 files: 47 695 MiB written (6663 files in 353 folders).
  2. Copy Windows image backup: 14 875 MiB written (16 files in four folders).
  3. Copy Windows 7 SP1 ISO file: 1953 MiB written
  4. Install Crysis: 2103 MiB written
  5. Install Office: 1174 MiB written
  6. Back-up Steam game: 14 246 MiB written
  7. Run antivirus scan: 365 MiB read
  8. Play Crysis single-player: 813 MiB read

The tasks we chose are all write-intensive, with the exception of the Crysis single-player campaign. Therefore, we are primarily looking at write performance in a real-world environment. The combined activity results in just over 80 GiB of capacity written to on each drive. The reason this matters during our benchmark analysis will be explained further in the results from our HD Tune Benchmark tests.

The Vertex 4 dominates all of the tasks, aside from the only read-intensive workload, where it finishes in last place.

Plextor's M5 Pro does significantly better than the M5S, and simultaneously beats Samsumg's 830 and Crucial's m4 in everything except the read-intensive task, where Crucial's m4 comes out on top.

The Crysis single-player campaign consists of random and sequential read operations, roughly split down the middle, with 80% of the data transferred by sequential operations.

Frankly, we're a little surprised that Crucial's drive does so well here, since the synthetic read performance results indicate that Plextor's M5 Pro should be superior.

Display all 23 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 15 Hide
    grantwar , September 28, 2012 10:35 AM
    I'd love to see how this drive fares against the samsung 840 Pro.
  • 13 Hide
    SpadeM , September 28, 2012 10:56 AM
    grantwarI'd love to see how this drive fares against the samsung 840 Pro.


    Here you go:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/665?vs=646
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , September 28, 2012 4:43 AM
    You have the wrong Marvell controller listed for the crucial M4 and the Plextor M5S. This controller is new.
    The old one was the 88SS9174-BKK2.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/plextor-m3-crucial-m4-octane-performance-pro,3178.html
  • 9 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , September 28, 2012 5:17 AM
    can we have a benchmark of the time it takes to install a fresh copy of Win7+SP1 on a SSD ? Because thats the first thing a user will do after buying a new drive.
  • 4 Hide
    echondo , September 28, 2012 5:54 AM
    mayankleoboy1can we have a benchmark of the time it takes to install a fresh copy of Win7+SP1 on a SSD ? Because thats the first thing a user will do after buying a new drive.


    I believe we can all assume it will take around 10-15 minutes. My old SATA2 Vertex drive can have Windows installed with all the Windows updates I want in around 20 minutes, it would be less time but I have to install all my drivers first for my motherboard :p 
  • 0 Hide
    fat-chunk , September 28, 2012 10:24 AM
    Long live SSDs!
  • 15 Hide
    grantwar , September 28, 2012 10:35 AM
    I'd love to see how this drive fares against the samsung 840 Pro.
  • 13 Hide
    SpadeM , September 28, 2012 10:56 AM
    grantwarI'd love to see how this drive fares against the samsung 840 Pro.


    Here you go:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/665?vs=646
  • 6 Hide
    JeanLuc , September 28, 2012 12:30 PM
    I was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software.
  • 6 Hide
    merikafyeah , September 28, 2012 12:35 PM
    SpadeMHere you go: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/665?vs=646

    Wow. The 840 Pro beat the M5 Pro in virtually everything according to that data. The 840 Pro does cost significantly more though.
  • 4 Hide
    merikafyeah , September 28, 2012 12:41 PM
    JeanLucI was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software.

    TheSSDReview did something similar:
    http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/romex-fancycache-review-ssd-performance-at-13gbs-and-765000-iops-in-60-seconds-flat/

    No point in even comparing RAM to SSDs, as even "slow" RAM is faster than even the best SSDs by about the same amount as the best SSDs are faster than floppy disks.
  • 0 Hide
    aicom , September 28, 2012 5:09 PM
    This review would have been impressive if it was published 2 weeks ago. With the 840 Pro out, it simply blows the M5P out of the water. Too bad it wasn't included in the benchmark charts here.
  • 0 Hide
    richard hart , September 28, 2012 5:27 PM
    @ rafale. Thanks for spotting that mistake. Its now been corrected.
  • 0 Hide
    bobdylan11 , September 28, 2012 9:42 PM
    woot, installing mine at this moment
    450 for 512gb
    good luck beating that "stat", samsung
  • 0 Hide
    KenZen2B , September 29, 2012 4:37 AM
    merikafyeah 09/28/2012 2:41 PM Insert quote.
    Report
    -1+ .
    JeanLuc :

    I was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software.



    TheSSDReview did something similar:
    http://thessdreview.com/our-review [...] onds-flat/

    No point in even comparing RAM to SSDs, as even "slow" RAM is faster than even the best SSDs by about the same amount as the best SSDs are faster than floppy disks.

    I have read the article and have these thoughts on the subject.
    1) Why have mobo manufactures not placed an extra four memory slots on their mobo to handle this concept ?
    2) Why have RAM manufactures not teamed up with mobo manufactures to supply them with 256 GB memory sticks ?
    3) Has the industry, video and others, (movies, ads, special effects, cartoons, simulations, etc.) moved to this type of strategy to increase their productivity ?
  • 1 Hide
    luciferano , September 29, 2012 6:14 AM
    KenZen2Bmerikafyeah 09/28/2012 2:41 PM Insert quote. Report -1+ .JeanLuc :I was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software. TheSSDReview did something similar:http://thessdreview.com/our-review [...] onds-flat/No point in even comparing RAM to SSDs, as even "slow" RAM is faster than even the best SSDs by about the same amount as the best SSDs are faster than floppy disks.I have read the article and have these thoughts on the subject.1) Why have mobo manufactures not placed an extra four memory slots on their mobo to handle this concept ?2) Why have RAM manufactures not teamed up with mobo manufactures to supply them with 256 GB memory sticks ?3) Has the industry, video and others, (movies, ads, special effects, cartoons, simulations, etc.) moved to this type of strategy to increase their productivity ?


    1) mobo manufacturers would have nothing to connect these RAM slots too. They need DDR3 controllers and they'd need more of them, so where are those going to come from? The only thing that I can think of is some sort of integrated PCIe device and it would make the motherboard quite expensive.

    2) 256GB memory sticks would cost thousands of dollars. Even 16GB memory sticks and especially 32GB memory sticks can already be extremely expensive and difficult to make. We can't just make chips that have more memory capacity in a given size than current memory procces nodes can work with, so any such memory module with 256GB of RAM would be huge, to say the least.

    3) It's too expensive.

    Basically, cost is the main inhibitor for all three of your questions.
  • 0 Hide
    merikafyeah , September 29, 2012 12:11 PM
    Maybe it's for the best that they don't release the Limited Edition Shuriken model worldwide.
    Some people might be tempted to throw their SSDs like tech ninjas.
  • 0 Hide
    hrath , September 29, 2012 3:22 PM
    wow that looks epic :) 
  • 0 Hide
    g00b , September 30, 2012 7:52 PM
    I think the first page meant Flash instead of DDR.

    "... reviewed previously uses 25 nm synchronous NAND from Micron and Marvell's 88SS9174-BLD2 controller, while the M5 Pro employs 19 nm Toggle-mode --DDR-- from Toshiba and a more modern Marvell 88SS9187-BLD2 processor."
  • 2 Hide
    g00b , September 30, 2012 7:54 PM
    Ok. I'm partly an idiot :) .

    Toggle-Mode Double Data Rate NAND Flash
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 2, 2012 3:30 PM
    But how does the M5Pro compare with the Corsair Neutron GTX ?
  • 2 Hide
    Onihikage , October 2, 2012 7:19 PM
    Quote:
    I have read the article and have these thoughts on the subject.
    1) Why have mobo manufactures not placed an extra four memory slots on their mobo to handle this concept ?
    2) Why have RAM manufactures not teamed up with mobo manufactures to supply them with 256 GB memory sticks ?
    3) Has the industry, video and others, (movies, ads, special effects, cartoons, simulations, etc.) moved to this type of strategy to increase their productivity ?


    Luciferano has already commented, but I thought I'd make input on the first point. There are mobos with an extra four slots, enabling up to 64GB of RAM (such as the ASUS P9X79 PRO) but these are uncommon and expensive. Higher RAM capacities under today's technology will almost always require you to be using server hardware; the PC form factor just won't cut it.
Display more comments