Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Testing Samsung's XP941 On Z97 Express

A 1400 MB/s SSD: ASRock's Z97 Extreme6 And Samsung's XP941
By

In most of the stories we write, it doesn't matter where Windows is installed. Storage testing is a bit different though, particularly when we need to turn off the PCH's SATA ports. Thus, utilizing Windows to Go makes a lot of sense. A fully-functioning image can be ported from one machine to another over USB 3.0. It's just as quick as an installation to a SATA-attached SSD, and it enables testing methodologies otherwise considered impractical.

Note also that we're using Intel's new Rapid Storage Technology 13-series driver. It doesn't have much bearing on today's story; the fancier features will get rolled into a version of the RST software later this year. But it was time to upgrade, and so I have.

Test Hardware
ProcessorIntel Core i5-4670K (Haswell), 22 nm, 3.3 GHz, LGA 1150, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled
MotherboardASRock Z97 Extreme6
MemoryG.Skill Ripjaws 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1866 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V
System Drive Muskin Ventura Ultra 240 GB USB 3.0 UASP
Drive(s) Under TestSamsung MZHPU512HCGL-00000 512 GB M.2 Gen 2 x4 PCIe, AHCI
Power Supply
Seasonic X400 FL2, 80+ Platinum
ChassisLian Li A01-NB ATX
HSF
Noctua NH-L9i
Graphics
Intel HD Graphics 4600
OS
Windows 8.1 Enterprise, Windows to Go
Drivers
STORAHCI.SYS (Generic AHCI), Intel RST 13.1 (SATA)
Comparison DrivesPlextor M6e 256 GB M.2 PCIe x2, Firmware: 1.00

Plextor M6S 256 GB SATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: 1.00

Plextor M6M 256 GB mSATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: 1.00

Adata SP920 256 GB SATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: MU01

Crucial M550 512 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: MU01

Intel SSD 730 480 GB SATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: L2010400

SanDisk X210 512 GB, Firmware X210400

Crucial M500 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: MU02

Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: EXT0AB0Q

Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware DXM04B0Q

Seagate 600 SSD 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: B660

OCZ Vector 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.0

Plextor M5 Pro 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 1.02
Benchmarks
ULINK DriveMaster 2012
DM2012 v980, JEDEC 218A-based TRIM Test, Protocol Test Suite
Test Specific Hardware
SAS/SATA Power Hub, DevSlp Platform, PCIe SSD Power Adapter
Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0
Intel iPeak Storage Toolkit 5.2.1, Tom's Storage Bench 1.0 Trace Recording
Iometer 1.1.0# Workers = 1, 4 KB Random: LBA=16 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential, 16 GB LBA Precondition, Exponential QD Scaling
PCMark 8
PCMark 8 2.0.228, Storage Consistency Test
Display all 20 comments.
  • -7 Hide
    aminebouhafs , June 5, 2014 5:16 AM
    Once an SSD in plugged into the Ultra M.2 slot, the bandwidth between central processing unit and graphics processing unit is cut-down by half. Therefore, while the end-user gets additional SSD performance, the end-user may lose some GPU performance because of insufficient bandwidth between it and the CPU.
  • 8 Hide
    JoeArchitect , June 5, 2014 7:18 AM
    Very interesting article and a great read. Thanks, Chris - I hope to see more like this soon!
  • 0 Hide
    wussupi83 , June 5, 2014 8:21 AM
    great article! - although z97 still seems boring
  • -1 Hide
    Eggz , June 5, 2014 9:54 AM
    This makes me excited for X99! With 40 (or more) lanes, of PCI-e (probably more), there will be no need to compromise. We have to remember that the Z97 Chipset is a consumer-grade product, so there almost has to be tradoffs in order to justify stepping up to a high-end platform.

    That said, I feel like X99, NVMe, and and M.2 products will coincide nicely with their respective releases dates. Another interesting piece to the puzzle will be DDR4. Will the new storage technology and next-generation CPUs utilize it's speed, or like DD3, will it take several generations for other technologies to catch up to RAM speeds? This is quite an interesting time :) 
  • 5 Hide
    Amdlova , June 5, 2014 9:56 AM
    Chris test the asrock z97 itx... and another thing... my last 3 motherboard from asrock and i want to say Asrock Rock's!
  • 0 Hide
    Damn_Rookie , June 5, 2014 11:27 AM
    While storage isn't the most important area of computer hardware for me, I always enjoy reading Christopher's articles. Very well written, detail orientated, and above all else, interesting. Thanks!
  • 0 Hide
    hotwire_downunder , June 5, 2014 8:58 PM
    ASRock has come along way, I used them a long time back with disappointing results, but I have started to use them again and have not been disappointed this time around.

    Way to turn things around ASRock! Cheap as chips and rock steady!
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , June 5, 2014 10:51 PM
    @aminebouhafs if i remember right, didn't toms show how much performance loss there is when you tape gpu cards to emulate having half or even a quarter of the bandwidth? if i remember right back than the difference was only about 12% from 16 lanes down to either 4 or 8
  • 1 Hide
    Eggz , June 6, 2014 7:39 AM
    Quote:
    @aminebouhafs if i remember right, didn't toms show how much performance loss there is when you tape gpu cards to emulate having half or even a quarter of the bandwidth? if i remember right back than the difference was only about 12% from 16 lanes down to either 4 or 8


    PCI-e 3.0 x8 has enough bandwidth for any single card. The only downside to using PCI-e lanes on the SSD applies only to people who want to use multiple GPUs.

    Still, though, this is just the mid-range platform anyway. People looking for lots of expansion end up buying the X chipsets rather than the Z chipsets because of the greater expandability. I feel like the complaint is really misplaced for Z chipsets, since they only have 16 PCI-e lanes to begin with.
  • 2 Hide
    cryan , June 8, 2014 5:22 AM
    Quote:
    Once an SSD in plugged into the Ultra M.2 slot, the bandwidth between central processing unit and graphics processing unit is cut-down by half. Therefore, while the end-user gets additional SSD performance, the end-user may lose some GPU performance because of insufficient bandwidth between it and the CPU.


    Well, it'll definitely negate some GPU configurations, same as any PCIe add-in over the CPU's lanes. With so few lanes to work with on Intel's mainstream platforms, butting heads is inevitable.

    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan


  • 3 Hide
    cryan , June 8, 2014 5:23 AM
    Quote:
    While storage isn't the most important area of computer hardware for me, I always enjoy reading Christopher's articles. Very well written, detail orientated, and above all else, interesting. Thanks!


    Awww, shucks!

    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan
  • -1 Hide
    obamaliar , June 8, 2014 12:08 PM
    Supercool review, Just as a note though any pair of good SATA Based SSD's will blow the doors off of that x941. For example I am getting 740.00MB/s bandwidth at steady 5 and 948.37MB/s at recovery 5 for PCM8 extended photoshop heavy from a pair of Intel 730's
  • -1 Hide
    obamaliar , June 8, 2014 12:10 PM
    Supercool review, Just as a note though any pair of good SATA Based SSD's will blow the doors off of that x941. For example I am getting 740.00MB/s bandwidth at steady 5 and 948.37MB/s at recovery 5 for PCM8 extended photoshop heavy from a pair of Intel 730's
  • 1 Hide
    Evolution2001 , June 8, 2014 8:08 PM
    obamaliar, how do you reckon that your 740MBps or 948MBps is faster than 1400MBps? (referencing the sequential read of the tested drive)
    SATA3 has a theoretical max of 6Gbps (750MBps). However, the practical max is more around 600MBps.
    Assuming you are running your Intel 730's in RAID-0 and achieving the max practical throughput, you'd still only come up with ~1200MBps which is slower than what Tom's saw at 1400MBps ON A SINGLE DRIVE.
  • -1 Hide
    obamaliar , June 9, 2014 8:55 AM
    Quote:
    obamaliar, how do you reckon that your 740MBps or 948MBps is faster than 1400MBps? (referencing the sequential read of the tested drive)
    SATA3 has a theoretical max of 6Gbps (750MBps). However, the practical max is more around 600MBps.
    Assuming you are running your Intel 730's in RAID-0 and achieving the max practical throughput, you'd still only come up with ~1200MBps which is slower than what Tom's saw at 1400MBps ON A SINGLE DRIVE.

    Quote:
    obamaliar, how do you reckon that your 740MBps or 948MBps is faster than 1400MBps? (referencing the sequential read of the tested drive)
    SATA3 has a theoretical max of 6Gbps (750MBps). However, the practical max is more around 600MBps.
    Assuming you are running your Intel 730's in RAID-0 and achieving the max practical throughput, you'd still only come up with ~1200MBps which is slower than what Tom's saw at 1400MBps ON A SINGLE DRIVE.
    Evolution 2001, I am referring to OS simulated performance IE CRYAN's PCMark 8 extended testing. Please read the article and you would understand that sequential performance is really a non-factor in comparison to random performance in an OS environment. Right now, SATA RAID has vastly superior random performance to PCIe drives like the X941, even if you were to soft RAID a pair of X941's together they cannot match a pair of good SATA SSD's in RAID in an OS environment. I cannot show you that exactly because Soft RAID is not bootable. look here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1445011539065390/ there ia a pair of X941's soft raided getting their asses kicked by SATA RAID. The reason? 4K writes do not scale on PCIe drives. When PCIe drives can be RAIDed, bootable in RAID and have an RST type driver that allows for write caching Then they will become the superior OS disk.
  • 2 Hide
    cryan , June 10, 2014 11:57 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    obamaliar, how do you reckon that your 740MBps or 948MBps is faster than 1400MBps? (referencing the sequential read of the tested drive)
    SATA3 has a theoretical max of 6Gbps (750MBps). However, the practical max is more around 600MBps.
    Assuming you are running your Intel 730's in RAID-0 and achieving the max practical throughput, you'd still only come up with ~1200MBps which is slower than what Tom's saw at 1400MBps ON A SINGLE DRIVE.

    Quote:
    obamaliar, how do you reckon that your 740MBps or 948MBps is faster than 1400MBps? (referencing the sequential read of the tested drive)
    SATA3 has a theoretical max of 6Gbps (750MBps). However, the practical max is more around 600MBps.
    Assuming you are running your Intel 730's in RAID-0 and achieving the max practical throughput, you'd still only come up with ~1200MBps which is slower than what Tom's saw at 1400MBps ON A SINGLE DRIVE.
    Evolution 2001, I am referring to OS simulated performance IE CRYAN's PCMark 8 extended testing. Please read the article and you would understand that sequential performance is really a non-factor in comparison to random performance in an OS environment. Right now, SATA RAID has vastly superior random performance to PCIe drives like the X941, even if you were to soft RAID a pair of X941's together they cannot match a pair of good SATA SSD's in RAID in an OS environment. I cannot show you that exactly because Soft RAID is not bootable. look here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1445011539065390/ there ia a pair of X941's soft raided getting their asses kicked by SATA RAID. The reason? 4K writes do not scale on PCIe drives. When PCIe drives can be RAIDed, bootable in RAID and have an RST type driver that allows for write caching Then they will become the superior OS disk.


    Actually, the 4 KB writes are really an artifact of the AHCI controller/API. If you took the same flash and controller on the Sammy, but rigged it to use NVMe, I think you'd see a big bump in random 4 KB performance. I've said over and over that desktop users, for now, are better off by using a couple SATA drives in RAID. More than just adding bandwidth, which isn't always important (strictly speaking), it lowers service times significantly. Plus, it's great to just keep adding cheap drives and getting more performance and capacity (when striped). See the Plextor M6e PCIe review for my thoughts on this.

    It's all academic anyway, since you can only buy the XP941 from a few random places, and it's $750. If I had a laptop which could use it, maybe I go that route, but even there SATA is just more power efficient. Give me a 1 TB EVO or M550 instead..... at least for the time being.

    PS: Is this Jon C??

    Regards,
    Christopher Ryan
  • 0 Hide
    obamaliar , June 10, 2014 1:24 PM
    Thanks for the reply love your stuff C Ryan :) 
  • 1 Hide
    Eggz , June 10, 2014 3:42 PM
    Quote:
    Give me [either a 750 GB] or a 1 TB EVO or M550 instead..... at least for the time being.


    Totally agree! For now.

    I also added the 750 EVO in there because (I believe) the only difference between the 1TB and the 750GB is capacity, unlike the smaller drives, which actually have less performance (i.e. 120, 250, & 500 GB).
  • 0 Hide
    logainofhades , June 27, 2014 11:59 AM
    I would rather use a single powerful GPU anyway, so the cut to 8x due to the ultra M.2 slot doesn't bother me at all. This is definitely and interesting board. I want an Ultra M.2 slot on a mini-itx board. :D 
  • 0 Hide
    lukebutters , July 15, 2014 7:32 PM
    If the RAID controller is set up with 4 disks in RAID 10, will the DMI limit be reached?
React To This Article