Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Iometer

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

We used an 8 GiB LBA range for each of our Iometer benchmarks, running each test for 90 seconds. We also aligned the read and write access patterns to a 4 KiB sector boundary.

This measurement is useful for looking at the read and write performance of common transfer sizes at queue depths ranging from one to 32. Queue depths in a typical client environment are generally quite low, so the results generated between one and four are of particular interest. Read operations are typically a lot more prevalent than writes operations, so read performance is also most relevant.

Plextor's M5 Pro dominates read performance across all transfers sizes and queue depths, while the Vertex 4 comes out on top in write performance, peaking high and early.

In order to compare our findings to what each manufacturer says its drive can do, we have to convert the MiB/s results to IOPS. Notably, the "up to" results that vendors like to use are typically based on a queue depth of 32, and it's possible to see significant variation in Iometer results depending on the span of the test file and prior write history.

As expected, there is some variation between our benchmark results and those specified by the manufacturers. This comes down to differences in how each company determines its performance specifications, the state of the drives, and the test system used. We're happy to see that Plextor's M5 Pro, though rated for the highest I/O performance, also finishes first in what we measure.


Vendor-Rated "Up to" 4 KiB Read IOPSObserved 4 KiB Read QD 32 IOPSVendor-Rated "Up to" 4 KiB Write IOPSObserved 4 KiB Write QD 32 IOPS
Samsung 83080 00076 30930 00039 657
Crucial M450 00046 82450 00059 175
Vertex 490 00085 15985 00082 335
Plextor M5S73 00073 88870 00069 346
Plextor M5 Pro94 00090 88386 00084 081


But those numbers are at a queue depth of 32. Let's instead have a look at 4 KiB read and write performance at a queue depth one, which is where you're going to see more activity. We again converted the MiB/s results to IOPS in our chart below.

Plextor's M5 Pro comes out on top again for read performance, but trails the Vertex 4 on write performance (though not by much).


Iometer, 4 KiB Read QD 1 IOPSIometer, 4 KiB Write QD 1 IOPS
Samsung 830
5 721
15 849
Crucial m4
5 849
15 900
Vertex 4
7 036
16995
Plextor M5S
7 076
15 823
Plextor M5 Pro
7 729
16 688
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