These days, an SSD is the obvious choice when an OS drive in almost any build. But if you also care about aesthetics, you may want to opt for one of the fancier RGB or heatsink-adorned models. With some killer looks accented with RGB lighting and fast PCIe 3.0 x4 performance, Patriot’s Viper VPR100 is one of our top picks for just that kind of drive.

The first RGB drive from Viper Gaming, Patriot’s gaming brand, the Viper VPR100 is a speedy little M.2 NVMe SSD with an included heatsink and some attractive RGB lighting. Targeted towards the gaming and overclocking crowd, as well as those who have more demanding workloads like video production and 3D modeling and rendering, it aims to be a potent mainstream contender.  

Like Patriot’s Viper VPN100 we reviewed in May, the Viper VPR100 boasts the same underlying hardware: a Phison E12 NVMe SSD controller and 64-layer Toshiba TLC. Strangely, the company rates the Viper VPR100 a little higher than the new RGB drive. Read performance is the same across all capacities, up to 3.3 GBps, while write performance ranges from 1 GBps up to 2.9 GBps, depending on the capacity. 

Random performance is rated for up to 700,000/650,000 IOPS read/write too. But we noticed the following rather surprising footnote on the product’s spec sheet, which was a bit alarming at first:

"*RGB sync may decrease up to 20-30% Read/Write speed (depending on RGB mode selected)."

Well, that doesn't sound good. No one wants RGB to hinder your performance. But performance degradation doesn’t happen all the time, only with specific motherboard and lighting mode configurations. And there doesn't seem to be any list of specific configurations that do incur a performance penalty. 

On our ASRock X570 Taichi testbed, we found performance to compare well to most other E12 based SSDs with no performance loss when setting to the default Viper illumination style as well as various other lighting settings.

Specifications

Patriot’s Viper VPR100 comes in four capacities ranging from 256GB up to 2TB, with the sample we're testing today being the 2TB model. Price-wise, the RGB SSD comes in at a premium over non-RGB products, but is still cheaper than Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus. As a Phison E12-based SSD with powerful low-density parity-check (LDPC) code, the Viper VPR100 comes with class-leading endurance, up to 3,115 TB at the highest capacity, and is backed by a 5-year warranty.

The drive also comes with support for Trim and S.M.A.R.T. data reporting. It can be securely erased via the "Format NVM" command, to ensure all your data is gone when you sell it or trash it down the road. But, while the controller offers optional support for hardware encryption, the Viper VPR100 drive doesn’t support this feature.

Software and Accessories

Patriot lacks an SSD toolbox as well as free cloning software, which are both things most vendors provide their customers. However, the company offers full customization of the Viper VPR100’s RGB through the VIPER RGB app 2.1 software available for download on the company website. With the software, you can use one of the eight pre-programmed RGB lighting patterns, including breathing, heartbeat, viper, and others. The lighting is also fully compatible with ASRock Polychrome Sync, MSI Mystic Light Sync, ASUS AURA Sync, GIGABYTE RGB Fusion.

A Closer Look

Patriot’s Viper VPR100 comes in an M.2 2280 double-sided form factor, meaning components are on both sides of the 10-layer PCB. The PCB is blue rather than black, though you won’t usually notice that once installed, behind the heatsink and lighting.

Powering the device, as mentioned, is a Phison PS5012-E12 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3 SSD controller. It's an eight-channel controller that features a DRAM-based architecture to ensure quality service, even under heavier workloads. Built on a 28nm manufacturing process, it features dual Cortex-R5 processors and CoXProcessor 2.0 technology (dual coprocessors). The Cortex R5 CPUs manage reads and writes while the less powerful CoXProcessors are specialized to assists the R5s by handling the background flash management activities.

On our sample, Patriot used 2GB of DDR4 for controller cache with a 1GB DRAM chip on each side of the PCB. The 1TB model comes with just 1GB, while the 512GB and 256GB models feature 512GB caches. There are four NAND emplacements on our 2TB sample that are packed with Toshiba’s BiCS3 64L TLC, but the company says it may update it with 96L NAND flash at a later time depending on price and availability.

Having tested a few SSDs with this same hardware, performance has been pretty solid and cooling hasn’t been much of an issue. But even so, Patriot specs this SSD with a slick aluminum “heatshield” (heatsink) and an external thermal sensor to ensure efficient operation. With the lighting and heatsink, the SSD measures 8mm thick, so a bit thicker than most M.2 SSDs, but it's still fairly slim overall. And, unlike other Patriot SSDs we have tested, the heatsink was rather easy to remove.

The drive's RGB lighting can be customized within five LED zones from left to right. In total there are 13 LEDs on the PCB, 10 around the edge and three near the center under the Viper logo. Whatever lighting style we set it to, that pattern stuck through reboots and system swaps, too.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

Today, we pit the Viper VPR100 against many of its 2TB competitors. As mainstream competitors, we include the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, a Samsung 970 EVO Plus, and MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro, which features the same hardware components as the Viper VPR100.  We also added high-end options such as the 1.5TB Intel Optane SSD 905P, 1TB Samsung 970 PRO, and a 2TB Patriot Viper VP4100, a PCIe 4.0 x4 SSD. To help weigh in on the VPR100’s value, we also included the Intel SSD 660p, a Crucial MX500 SATA SSD, and a 6TB WD Black HDD for good measure.   

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood and Stormbringer are two free real-world game benchmarks that easily and accurately compare game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Patriot’s Viper VPR100 matched MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro in total load time. Most other SSDs have slightly better 4K performance here, which helps them hit slightly faster load times. But the difference is only a second or two at most. 

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly written 6.5 GB file.

Patriot’s Viper VPR100 has lower-than-average file copy performance for a PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD. This is mainly due to the test file folder being larger than the SSD’s write cache. Other SSDs, such as the Samsung 970 EVO Plus or ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro, score similarly to Intel’s Optane SSD 905P. Reading back a large file after the copy, the Viper VPR100 didn’t disappoint, however. When reading large files, it scored fourth place overall, just 1 MBps slower than the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro. Overall, the Patriot drive delivers much better performance than any SATA SSD and is (of course) significantly faster than any HDD. 

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Tests: Quick and Full

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and common tasks to measure the performance of storage devices. The quick benchmark is more relatable to those who use their PCs lightly, while the full benchmark relates more to power users.

Intel’s Optane 905P can’t be matched if you are looking for lightning-quick response times and the Gen4 interface of the Patriot Viper VP4100 gives it a slight edge over the NAND based competition, even in the full test. But still, the Viper VPR100 doesn't disappoint here. 

In the quick test, Patriot’s Viper VPR100 scored very well, landing in third place, just behind the Viper VP4100 and even beating the Samsung 970 PRO and Adata XPG SX8200 Pro. In the full test, the VPR100 falls behind a bit due to its small write cache, but still provides twice the responsiveness of a SATA SSD and is much more responsive than a mechanical HDD.

Trace Testing – SPECworkstation 3

Like PCMark 8, SPECworkstation 3 is a trace-based benchmark, but it is designed to push the system harder by measuring workstation performance in professional applications.

As we have seen in the previous tests, the small write cache affects the Viper VPR100’s ability to sustain performance under heavier workloads. In SPECworkstation 3, the trend continues. Overall, the Viper lands in sixth place, edging out the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, but falling behind most mainstream and high-end competitors.

Synthetics - ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

In ATTO, we tested Patriot’s Viper VPR100 at a QD of 1, representing most day to day file access at various block sizes. Read and write performance falls in line with most competitors. Read performance peaked at about 3 GBps, or about 11-12x the performance of the WD Black HDD.

Synthetic Testing - iometer

iometer is an advanced and highly configurable storage benchmarking tool that vendors often use to measure the performance of their devices.

Using iometer, Patriot’s Viper VPR100 established peak sequential performance of 3,480/3,015 MBps read/write, scoring fifth place among our comparison systems.  Random performance is responsive, but not quite as responsive as most competitors at a queue depth of 1. Maxing out the SSD with random requests resulted in it hitting 425K/544K IOPS read/write. An HDD simply cannot compare.  

Sustained Write Performance, Cache Recovery, and Temperature

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds.  

When possible, we also log the temperature of the drive via the S.M.A.R.T. data to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Bear in mind that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

The Viper VPR100 can sustain up to 24-25GB of writes at 3 GBps before performance degrades to about 1 GBps. Overall, it nearly matches the BPX Pro with nearly 900GB of data written within 15 minutes. The write cache, while small, recovers within 30 seconds of idle time. So, in most day to day use, it will write at up to 3 GBps without a hitch.

When moving files around, the heat produced by the SSD wasn’t an issue. We first set all LEDs to white and at maximum brightness before we tested temperature. The maximum controller temperature reported was just 72 degrees Celsius during 200-300GB of writing and copying with static air (no airflow) and in a 25C room.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

Average and max power consumption is well regulated, but when it comes to power efficiency, Patriot’s Viper VPR100 could use a bit of work. It scores sixth place overall due to its slower-than-average transfer speed during our 50GB copy test. At idle it consumes a bit more power than the competition due to the RGB lighting, which also causes slightly high idle temperatures. But with the lights off, the drive has similar power consumption levels as the rest.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

When we first took a look at the Viper VPR100 we were a bit concerned about its performance. Not only was it rated lower than most Phison E12 based SSDs, but the company states it will perform slower under various RGB settings. But, when we ran it through its paces with various lighting settings, the drive displayed no such issue our ASRock X570 Taichi testbed. In fact, it even outperformed the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro at times with the default lighting enabled, beating its rated specs.

Overall though, the VPR100 wasn’t quite as fast as some of our other contenders. Game load performance, while OK, didn’t set any records. Even Crucial’s MX500, a SATA SSD, outperformed it there. As well, it didn’t do so well in our 50GB copy test and fell behind in write-heavy application tests slightly due to the smaller static write cache. That said, once the cache fills, base write performance is still pretty darn good at 1 GBps.

One of the Viper VPR100’s direct competitors is Adata’s XPG Spectrix S40G. While we don’t have the 2TB sample to test, we’re fairly confident that the Viper VPR100 is the better performer on average based on the 1TB results we have on file. Another competitor is Gigabyte’s Aorus RGB M.2. The Viper tops that drive in the looks department with a darkerheatsink and better RGB lighting effects and support. While it shares the same hardware, the Viper VPR100 is also available in capacities up to 2TB, unlike the Gigabyte that maxes out at 512GB in the M.2 form factor.

The integrated heatshield not only adds quite a bit to the aesthetics of the Viper VPR100, but it also keeps the SSD cool under any workload. And, the LED’s didn’t add any significant heat output either. So, no matter what your style is, you won’t have to sweat over your choice. If you're building an all-RGB rig, or just a new gaming system that you want to also add a bit of color to, the Viper VPR100 will definitely light things up.

If RGB isn’t your thing, you can always save some cash and grab the company’s Viper VPN100, which comes without the LEDs and a different heatsink, but otherwise very similar hardware and specs. But with up to 3,115 TB of warrantied endurance, an attractive exterior that looks good even with its lights off, and a 5-year warranty, this Viper is a good option for those who want performance that looks pretty.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Silicon Power’s entry-level P34A60 offers up to 2.2/1.6 GBps of sequential read/write performance and comes at rock-bottom pricing. That makes it a great value and the NVMe interface is much faster than SATA drives for light use, and while it's not the perfect drive for gaming, it’s close. 

The P34A60 is a step down from Silicon Power's P34A80 that we recently reviewed. Unlike that model, the P34A60 doesn’t come with a Phison E12 NVMe SSD controller. Instead, it boasts an entry-level DRAMless Silicon Motion SM2263XT NVMe SSD controller.

While the SM2263XT doesn’t use DRAM, it still serves up multi-GBps transfer speeds and is responsive due to host memory buffer (HMB) technology. This NVMe feature uses some of the host’s memory for caching the drives Flash Translation Layer (FTL) data, ultimately keeping performance competitive at a lower price point. The only drawback to HMB is that these drives exhibit a bit more latency than DRAM-based SSDs, particularly when they are under heavy load. However, the lower-cost design saves the company a few bucks, which it then passes on to the consumer.

Specifications

Silicon Power’s SP34A60 comes in three capacities of 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB. The 1TB model is the best bang-for-your-buck at just $95, but the 256GB and 512GB models are priced very aggressively at $33.99 and $56.99, respectively. Silicon Power will release a 2TB model in early 2020.

As a PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3 device, the SP34A60 delivers performance figures of up to 2.1/1.2 GBps of sequential read/write throughput at the 256GB capacity, and up to 2.2 /1.6 GBps at the 512GB and 1TB capacities. All of the capacity points deliver up to 240,000 IOPS of random read performance and 250,000 write IOPS. 

Standard features include secure erase support via the Format NVM command, Trim, and S.M.A.R.T. data reporting. To ensure data integrity, the P34A60 features end-to-end data protection, a RAID engine, and Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC) ECC. This also ensures competitive endurance ratings. At up to 600TB of write endurance at the 1TB capacity, it matches Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus. It also has a five-year warranty, but that only applies if you haven't exhausted the write endurance.

Software and Accessories

Silicon Power provides an SSD Toolbox for download on the company’s website. It allows you to monitor your SSD’s S.M.A.R.T. data and view its health and endurance status.

A Closer Look

The P34A60 comes in an M.2 2280 form factor and our 512GB sample is single-sided, meaning the components are all on one side of the PCB. The SMI SM2263XT NVMe 1.3 SSD controller is accompanied by Intel 64-Layer TLC flash.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We put two mainstream contenders, the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro and MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro (similar to the P34A80), up against the P34A60. As direct competition, we threw in the Crucial P1, WD Blue SN500, and a Crucial MX500 SATA SSD. We also added in Intel Optane 905P and a 6TB WD Black HDD for reference. 

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Loading your favorite games is a relatively light task for any SSD; most perform similarly. At a total load time of 19.5 seconds, the P34A60 put up a great result that is a step ahead of most SATA SSDs.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow-up with a reading test of a newly written 6.5GB file.

The P34A60's read performance is limited due to the lower-power and less feature-packed controller. But by virtue of its TLC NAND, it scored ahead of the Crucial P1 with its QLC NAND flash, and even beat the WD Blue SN500 in read and copy performance. It even outperformed the BPX Pro during the 50GB copy, which, in essence, outperformed its more expensive brother, the P34A80, at the 512GB capacity point.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

In terms of total responsiveness, the P34A60 can handle almost any consumer workload you throw at it. It scored similarly to the SN500 and offers a clear advantage over any SATA device. 

Trace Testing – SPECworkstation 3

Like PCMark 8, SPECworkstation 3 is a trace-based benchmark, but it is designed to push the system harder by measuring workstation performance in professional applications.

In prosumer tasks, the P34A60 scored the lowest of the NVMe group. It did, however, pull off a better total completion time than the Crucial P1 with higher average bandwidth and peak performance. 

Synthetics - ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

In ATTO, we tested the P34A60 at a queue depth (QD) of 4. It delivered better small file performance than the WD Blue SN500 and Crucial P1. Peak results came in at 2.1 GBps read and 1.7 GBps write. It couldn't keep up with the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro or Intel Optane 905P, however.

Synthetic Testing - iometer

The iometer storage benchmarking tool is advanced and highly configurable. Vendors often use this utility to measure the performance of their devices.

Iometer shows similar peak values of about 2.1GBps read and 1.7GBps write. The P34A60's performance is responsive and ranks just behind the Adata at a QD of 1. Peak performance comes in at about 220,000/175,000 read/write IOPS. 

Sustained Write Performance & Temperature

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated.

When possible, we also log the temperature of the drive via the S.M.A.R.T. data to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Bear in mind that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

Silicon Power’s P34A60 features a dynamic SLC write cache. We wrote 67GB of data before write speeds degraded. Once performance faltered, the drive fell from 1,650 MBps of write throughput down to an average of 140 MBps. When transferring a few hundred GB of data, temperatures hit a peak of 67 degrees Celsius with an ambient of 25 degrees Celsius (static air cooling).

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state more quickly, which ultimately saves power.

The P34A60 came in first place in our efficiency tests. The drive averaged 2.5W of power consumption during the 50GB transfer and peaked at just over 3.5W. Due to HMB, however, idle power consumption is a bit higher than most SSDs.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Silicon Power’s P34A60 is an entry-level M.2 NVMe SSD that it does a pretty good job for its price point. The single-sided 512GB drive is slim enough for most devices and even features a black PCB, which is something we usually only see on higher-end SSDs. 

In light workloads, like web browsing and office use, the P34A60 should be more than enough, and it could even hold up under amateur video and photo editing workloads. Most importantly, the drive will load up your favorite games significantly faster than any HDD and be much more responsive than even a standard SATA SSD. File transfer performance is often superior to SATA SSDs, too. 

Unfortunately, the drive comes without DRAM, so sustained performance suffers significantly once the write cache fills up. However, competing drives like the Crucial P1 write even slower once the cache fills, and the drive comes with DRAM, highlighting the importance of different types of flash memory. In the end, the P1's QLC flash is still slower than the P34A60's TLC flash.

If you're searching for a lower-budget SSD, the P34A60 is a solid pick. It’s cheaper than the WD Blue SN500, Crucial P1, and Intel 660p, and offers similar performance. It also boasts a five-year warranty and significantly higher endurance ratings than QLC SSDs, making it a compelling package for value seekers. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Update 12/23/2019: We have updated this article with new testing for the 1.92TB BPX Pro SSD on page 4.

Original Review published 10/9/2018:

Higher performance, better endurance, more features and, of course, more accessories. Enthusiasts always want more of everything, and MyDigitalSSD designed the Bullet Proof eXpress Pro, or BPX Pro for short, to answer that call. The company started with Phison’s new high-end controller paired with Toshiba’s latest flash, so it has the right foundation for a strong product.

This combination of components allows the BPX Pro to enter the market at strikingly low prices while still providing enthusiast-class performance, features, endurance, and warranty. If you are in the market for a new M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD, the BPX Pro will give you your money’s worth and deliver up to 3.4/3.1 GB/s of read/write throughput in the process.

SSD prices are dropping, and many companies have focused solely on the race to the bottom while others have embraced high-end products. Some companies have even found themselves in-between the two approaches. Creating the right mix of value is difficult, but MyDigitalSSD, while not a large company, has navigated this territory quite well over the last few years. Through some good whims here, and well thought out strategy there, the company has delivered several hits and earned several of our recommendations.

The firm's first-gen enthusiast NVMe SSD, the BPX, came with a great mix of performance and price courtesy of Phison’s E7 SSD controller paired with MLC NAND. It even came with an M.2 screw and screwdriver as an accessory. At first, an extra screw may not seem like such a great inclusion, but it's the little things that count. For those of us that have dropped their only M.2 screw and lost it into a magical black hole, it was a godsend.

The new BPX Pro brings improved performance with Phison’s latest E12 SSD controller. The controller connects to Toshiba’s latest BiCS3 TLC NAND flash via eight dedicated channels. Like its predecessor, the BPX Pro comes with an extra M.2 screw and screwdriver, but now it includes a slick sticker so you can sticker bomb your gear.

Specifications

The BPX Pro offers great performance, but the controller’s features really add to the value. The BPX Pro’s E12 controller supports TRIM and SMART, end-to-end data path protection, static and dynamic wear leveling, bad block management, SmartECC, SmartRefresh, and AES-256 hardware encryption that supports TCG Opal and Pyrite standards. Also, just in case your drive gets a bit too toasty, it has a thermal throttling feature so that it won’t overheat. We've noticed the new E12 runs much cooler than the previous-gen E7, though, so it shouldn't be an issue for most users.

The BPX Pro offers up to 3.4/3.1 GB/s of sequential read/write throughput, which is enough to challenge the fastest SSDs on the market. MyDigitalSSD launched the drive with capacities of 1TB and lower, but added the 2TB model in October. MSRP  listed in the table above spans from $74.99 to $569.99. But here in November, real-world Amazon pricing was more appealing, with the 512GB model selling for $79.99, the 1TB for $129.99, and the 2TB model for $229.99. That undercuts some of the cheaper, lower performing NVMe options.

The BPX Pro comes with a healthy amount of overprovisioning, which helps boost endurance and performance. The resulting endurance figures trump the Samsung 970 PRO and every other modern SSD in our comparison, which is a nice complement to the five-year warranty.

MyDigitalSSD also launched a new M.2 NVMe to USB 3.1 Gen 2 adapter alongside the BPX Pro. The M2X allows you to use the BPX Pro as well as any other NVMe SSD as a portable, high-speed storage device for under $40. If you want to just have one of these high endurance SSDs as your portable scratch/media drive, it will handle the task no problem. Now you can use one of these speedy SSDs with almost any device with a USB connection.

A Closer Look

The BPX Pro comes in the M.2 2280 form factor and communicates over a PCIe 3.1 x4 interface with the NVMe protocol. The smaller 240GB and 480GB models are single-sided (all components are on one side of the PCB), while the 960GB and 2TB models are double-sided. That's important if you're installing a new M.2 SSD into a laptop, some of which only support single-sided M.2 drives.

The new eight-channel E12 NVMe controller is a step up from the older E7 in Phison’s line up. While the E7 helped pave Phison’s road to fame, the E12 has improved power consumption, NAND support, and performance.

Like the E7, the E12 uses a DRAM cache. There is a single DDR4 DRAM chip on the 480GB sample, while the 960GB model has two. The 480GB SSD comes with two Toshiba 64-layer 3D TLC NAND flash emplacements, and the 960GB model comes with four (two on each side). After formatting, the drives have 446GB and 894GB of usable capacity, respectively.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro (480GB)

Pros:

• Great sequential performance
• Class leading endurance ratings
• Good power efficiency

Cons:

• Lower than average application performance

Verdict: The BPX Pro is a great SSD for prosumers and media content creators. The drive offers a good balance of power efficiency, comes with a five-year warranty, and given its competitive pricing, it delivers an impressive performance to endurance ratio.

Rating: ★★★★ 

Comparison Products

We have the Intel SSD 760p and Adata XPG SX8200, both of which come equipped with Silicon Motion Inc. (SMI) controllers, in our test pool. We also included the Samsung 970 EVO and Toshiba RC100, both of which have proprietary controllers. The Plextor M9Pe features a Marvell controller and 3D TLC flash. We also threw in the BPX Pro’s E7-powered predecessor, the BPX, and its slower counterpart the SBX, which has a Phison E8 controller.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

The 480GB BPX Pro scored 5062 points and an average bandwidth of 462MB/s. While this is a sizable lead against the lower-end PCIe 3.0 x2 SBX and RC100, it trails the other PCIe 3.0 x4 devices, including the previous-gen BPX.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

The BPX Pro again landed behind its predecessor, the BPX. The total load time of 21.93 seconds was pretty fast, but it wasn't as good as the other drives in the test pool.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file. 

The BPX Pro outperformed the SBX by 2 MB/s and M9Pe by 3 MB/s during the copy test, but it didn't surpass any of the other drives. Surprisingly, the Toshiba RC100 took a sizeable 36 MB/s lead over the BPX Pro.

The BPX Pro's 2,245 MB/s read speed ranked second to the 970 EVO during the test.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro installed SYSmark slightly faster than the BPX, but it was six minutes faster than the 2TB HDD.

The BPX Pro notched a decent responsiveness score but trailed the BPX and almost every other NVMe SSD.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes. 

The BPX Pro only managed to pull off 2GB/s of write throughput, which allows the older BPX to take the lead. The BPX Pro dominated again with 3.45 GB/s of read bandwidth.

Anvil's Storage Utilities

Anvil's Storage Utility is a commonly-referenced benchmark that simplifies the complex IOMETER benchmark and its underlying Dynamo engine with a one-click software wrapper.

The BPX Pro lagged the 970 EVO by a large margin, but only trailed the SX8200 and M9Pe slightly.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

The BPX Pro took second place in sequential read and write speed at QD1 and 32. Zooming in on QD1-8 4K performance, we can see that the BPX Pro delivered middling read performance and nearly led in write throughput.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

The BPX Pro has a 30GB SLC write cache, meaning it is very similar to the Samsung 970 EVO. But the Samsung 970 EVO has a faster buffer and delivers better sustained write performance. Here, the BPX Pro's SLC buffer averaged 2GB/s of throughput, which dropped to 615MB/s after the buffer was saturated.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch XLC Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

Phison also appears to have power consumption under control. The drive supports the frugal APST, ASPM, and L1.2 power saving modes.

During the 50GB file copy test, MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro averaged 2.46W, which is great compared to the other drives. We recorded a maximum of just 4.44W, which was lower than most of the other drives in the comparison pool.

The low average and maximum power consumption numbers led to a solid 92MB/s per watt. At idle, the BPX Pro ranked first overall with ASPM disabled and came in third with the feature enabled.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro (960GB)

Pros:

• Great sequential performance
• Class leading endurance ratings
• Good power efficiency

Cons:

• Lower than average application performance

Verdict: The MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro is a good value M.2 NVMe SSD option for many, especially media creators. The BPX Pro offers a good balance of power efficiency, comes with a five-year warranty, and given its competitive pricing, it delivers an impressive performance to endurance ratio.

Rating: ★★★★ 

Comparison Products

We included the Plextor M9Pe, Intel SSD 660p, Adata XPG Gammix S11, and WD Black in our test pool. We also threw in both the Samsung 970 EVO and PRO. We also included a Crucial MX500 to see if PCIe SSDs are really worth the extra money over SATA drives.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

The BPX Pro's 480MB/s of bandwidth was nearly twice the MX500. While this was faster than the SATA-based drive, the BPX Pro lagged the other PCIe NVMe SSDs, even the “lower-end“ Intel SSD 660p.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Like the 480GB model, the 960GB BPX Pro had the slowest total game load time of the SSDs. The BPX Pro was still roughly 40% faster than an HDD.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

The BPX Pro outperformed the MX500 and M9Pe with an average copy rate of 274MB/s, but fell behind most of the other drives. During the zip file reading test, however, it ranked third with an average read rate of 2253MB/s. It even beat the Samsung 970 EVO.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro installed Sysmark two seconds faster than the 480GB model, which was on par with the Samsung 970 EVO and faster than the 970 PRO. The responsiveness score landed below the MX500 and all the NVMe SSDs.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes. 

The 960GB BPX took the overall lead with 3.5/3.0 GB/s of read/write throughput.

Anvil's Storage Utilities

Anvil's Storage Utility is a commonly-referenced benchmark that simplifies the complex IOMETER benchmark and its underlying Dynamo engine with a one-click software wrapper.

The BPX Pro ranked third in read performance in Anvil’s Storage Utilities, but write performance isn't as impressive, so the drive slips to fourth place overall.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

Focusing on the all-important QD1 results, the BPX Pro provided roughly 2GB/s of sequential read/write throughput, while 4K random performance was average.  Like the 480GB model, the BPX Pro’s QD1-8 4K random read speed is average, but the write performance leads the pack.  

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

The 960GB BPX Pro, like the 480GB model, has a 30GB SLC write cache buffer that can fill in as little as 10 seconds if you can write to it at 3GB/s. Beyond that, the BPX Pros delivered a consistent 1050 MB/s of write throughput.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch XLC Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

The BPX Pro averaged 2.84W during the 50GB file copy test, which was roughly the same as the WD Black. However, the BPX Pro's maximum power consumption is much better at just 4.85W during the copy test. This helped the BPX Pro rank fourth overall in efficiency with an average of 96MB/s per watt.

The BPX Pro had the best idle power consumption with ASPM disabled and is just behind the GAMMIX S11 and 760p with ASPM enabled.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro (1.92TB)

Pros:

• Price
• Capacity

Cons:

• Small SLC cache capacity
• Could use further performance optimization

Verdict: MyDigitalSSD’s 1.92TB BPX Pro comes with a very hefty endurance of 3115 TBW, or about eight times that of the Intel SSD 660p. While it isn’t a chart-topper in application performance, the 1.92TB BPX Pro still offers plenty of performance and high capacity for a great price. At just $229.99, it's one of the cheapest 2TB SSDs available and earns our recommendation.

Rating: ★★★★ 

Comparison Products

At 1.92TB, we pit the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro against some other high capacity competitors, all with the latest firmware. We have the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and HP SSD EX950 at 2TB: The Samsung boasts Samsung’s Phoenix controller and latest 9x layer TLC V-NAND while the HP comes in with a combination of Silicon Motion’s SM262EN and Micron’s 64L TLC. We also included the fastest and highest-capacity Intel Optane-infused product, the 1.5TB 905P. And, for comparison's sake, we’ve added in results from a SATA 1TB Samsung 860 EVO.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

During this game scene load test, Phison’s E12 has traditionally lagged behind other NVMe controllers on the market. This still holds true at the 2TB capacity point. With a total load time of 21 seconds, it ranks last amongst the other NVMe SSDs in our comparison pool, but is still fast enough to outpace the Samsung 860 EVO by about a second.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

While the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro can write at a pace of up to 3GB/s from other sources, it doesn’t fare too well in our file copy test to and from the drive itself. With an average transfer rate of 480MB/s, it delivers double the performance of the SATA 860 EVO, but still comes in second to last place with half the performance of the rest of the comparison pool.

Read performance is still great, though. With a read speed of 2.3GB/s, it read our 6GB file in under three seconds, ranking third in this test. 

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

In PCMark 8, again, the BPX Pro outperformed the SATA 860 EVO but lagged behind the rest of the NVMe pack. With a score of 5,097 points and an average bandwidth of 657MB/s during the run, the BPX Pro comes in fifth place overall.

Trace Testing – SPECworkstation 3

Like PCMark 8, SPECworkstation 3 is a trace-based benchmark, but it is designed to push the system harder by measuring workstation performance in professional applications. The full suite consists of more than 30 workloads, but we've opted to only run the storage benchmark which uses only 15 of them and categorizes the results into 5 market segments for scoring: Media & Entertainment, Product Development, Life Sciences, Energy, and General Operations.

Just as in PCMark 8, the BPX Pro comes in second to last place with a score that is double that of the 860 EVO, but still just can’t compete with the faster Samsung, Intel, and HP SSDs.  For general operations and most workloads, the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro is a decent drive, but there are better options if you are looking for the utmost workstation performance out of your device.

Synthetics - ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The 1.92TB MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro’s read speed takes a bit longer to ramp up compared to the rest of the NVMe pack. Overall, its sequential read and write performance peaked at 3,463MB/s and 3,033MB/s, respectively, which is roughly six to seven times the throughput you can achieve with a SATA SSD.

Synthetics - iometer

iometer is an advanced and highly configurable storage benchmarking tool that vendors often use to measure the performance of their devices.

The MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro peaks at 3,470MBps read and 3GBps write. Looking at the response time in both reads and writes as well as the average of QD1-4, the slightly lower than average application performance becomes apparent. The drive comes in last or second to last in random performance, with some figures lagging behind even the Samsung 860 EVO.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

Like the 960GB model, the 1.92TB BPX Pro averages a write speed of about 1GB/s after the 24GB pSLC write cache is saturated. Overall, it comes in second to last place. It is not as fast as the HP SSD EX950’s, and it becomes apparent just how much faster other options are after just thirty seconds of writing.  

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

The 2TB BPX Pro’s average power consumption comes in as the second-lowest on our charts, and the same goes for max power. But, even so, a lackluster performance in transferring our files folder pulls it down the efficiency ranks to second to last place. This time, not to the Samsung 860 EVO, but rather the extremely power-hungry Intel Optane SSD 905P. Additionally, idle power consumption is low overall but could be improved upon as the HP SSD EX950 reaches lows of just 12mW at its lowest idle state in this test system.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Creating the right mix of price, performance, and endurance is challenging, but MyDigitalSSD's BPX Pro brings a fine balance of all these aspects to the table. The BPX Pro isn’t the best performing SSD we've tested, nor is it the cheapest, but it offers plenty of performance and a ton of endurance for whatever workload you throw at it.

The table below includes the current street prices and endurance figures for the products in our comparison. The BPX Pro ranges from $0.31-0.27 per GB, which is somewhat low for an NVMe SSD. Just this week ADATA dropped the price of the SX8200 to an incredible $0.22-0.29 per GB, and the Intel 660p retails for ~$0.21 per GB, but those SSDs only offer a fraction of the endurance.

If your workload isn’t write heavy, like most average gamers and PC users, there are alternatives like the ADATA XPG SX8200 or even the Intel SSD 660p. These SSDs are more cost competitive and offer a bit better application performance, so we would be more inclined to recommend them over the BPX Pro. The Samsung 970 EVO is just a few dollars more depending on capacity, but it doesn’t have the best endurance on the market like the BPX Pro.

If you're a media creator and plan to use an NVMe SSD to help speed up your workflow, most of your workload will tax the storage media with heavy write workloads that can chew through endurance pretty quickly. The BPX Pro is a nice less-expensive alternative to the pricey Samsung 970 PRO, which also offers a ton of endurance and performance for the money. But the BPX Pro offers more endurance than the Samsung 970 PRO. While it isn’t quite as fast as the Samsung 970 PRO, the BPX Pro is fast enough for the average prosumer.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Samsung's 970 EVO Plus replaced the ever-popular 970 EVO as its mainstream NVMe SSD for tech enthusiasts, hardcore gamers, and professionals. Samsung equipped the SSD with V5 flash, which provides a nice bump in performance up to 3.5 GB/s of sequential read throughput. The drive also boasts hardware encryption support, a five-year warranty, and up to 1,200 TBW of endurance. Overall, the 970 EVO Plus is one of the fastest SSDs we've tested, so it easily gains our recommendation.

Though at press time, the 970 EVO didn't quite outpace the competition and make our best SSDs list, it's an excellent drive and very worthy of your consideration. That's particularly true if you're looking for greater endurance than more budget-friendly competitors like the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro.

The 3D NAND craze began in 2013. Since then, it has been a race to see who can push the layers the highest, deliver the highest density, and, of course, offer the best performance.  Last year, IMFT (Intel/Micron), Flash Forward (Toshiba/SanDisk), and SK Hynix all announced their 96-layer NAND that offers improved speed and density over 64-layer parts.

Unlike their competitors that have already announced 96-layer 3D NAND, Samsung hasn’t announced the exact number of layers in its V5 V-NAND. That's strange given the company's typical transparency and in-depth performance and hardware specifications.

Samsung does say that its latest 9x-layer flash operates at much faster speeds than its 64-layer predecessor and features a low 1.2V I/O rating. The new flash also supports the Toggle 4.0 interface, operates at 1.4GT/s, and comes with a 256Gb die density for the 250GB, 500GB, and 1TB 970 EVO Plus models. A 2TB model will come later, bringing with it a 512Gb die. 

The new 9x-layer V-NAND, combined with the 970 EVO Plus's firmware optimizations, improves random write performance significantly and gives the SSD a slight boost in random read performance, too. Sequential write speeds also increased by 800MB/s.

Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus can dish out up to 3.5GB/s of sequential read performance and up to a staggering 3.3GB/s write. It also delivers up to 620,000/560,000 random read/write IOPS.

The 970 EVO Plus's write performance varies based on how much data lands in the TurboWrite cache, which is a small section of faster SLC-programmed flash that's used to boost performance. Samsung's EVO Plus has both a default TurboWrite cache capacity, which doesn't change regardless of conditions, and an Intelligent TurboWrite region that varies in size depending on the model and the amount of free space on the drive.

For instance, the 1TB model provides 6GB of TurboWrite capacity. Beyond that, Intelligent TurboWrite steps in and scales up to an additional 36GB if you have enough free space on the drive.

Given the limited size of the TurboWrite cache, some large file transfers and workloads will land in the slower TLC flash. Even with the new NAND interface operating 40 percent faster than it did with V4 V-NAND, direct-to-TLC writes are still slower than the Intelligent TurboWrite region. But Samsung also improved the write performance of the TLC flash, which helps reduce the impact in those conditions. Samsung provides performance specifications for both TurboWrite and "after TurboWrite" performance, as listed in the chart above.

Specifications

Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus comes in the same capacities as the previous 970 EVO, but the 2TB model won’t arrive until mid-April. Samsung hasn't announced its pricing. The 500GB and 1TB models retail for roughly $0.25-$0.26-per-GB. The 250GB model comes in at a premium $0.32-per-GB.

As it was with the predecessor, the new 970 EVO Plus features a five-year warranty and boasts the same impressive endurance ratings. The drive even comes with hardware encryption that is compatible with Windows BitLocker, at no extra charge. It also supports secure erase so you can quickly and securely clear the drive of all stored data.

Software

Unlike most SSDs, Samsung’s NVMe SSDs feature an optional driver download that helps to improve performance over the default Windows NVMe driver slightly. It also helps ensure compatibility with older Windows operating systems, like Windows 7.

You can use Samsung’s Magician and Data Migration software to monitor, benchmark, and even clone your existing drive’s data to your new Samsung SSD. At the time of writing, however, the latest version of Magician (v5.3) doesn't support the 970 EVO Plus yet.

A Closer Look

The Samsung 970 EVO Plus communicates with the host over a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface using the NVMe 1.3 protocol. It features the same Phoenix controller as its predecessor, the 970 EVO. All models come in an M.2 2280 single-sided form factor, including the 2TB drive, thus ensuring broad compatibility with notebooks.

The Plus model comes equipped with all the same advanced thermal control features as the 970 EVO. The firm also added a nickel coating on the Phoenix controller and a thin copper film on the back of the PCB to help dissipate heat efficiently. Samsung's Dynamic Thermal Guard, a thermal throttling algorithm, will slow performance if the drive gets too hot. The EVO Plus model comes with a revamped Dynamic Thermal Guard implementation that Samsung says can transfer 86 percent more data (134GB) during sequential writes before throttling kicks in.

As mentioned earlier, Samsung's V5 TLC V-NAND with 256Gb dies powers the SSD. After formatting in Windows, the 500GB and 1TB models have 465GB or 931.5GB of usable space, respectively.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

500GB Performance Results

We put Samsung’s 500GB 970 EVO Plus up against the Adata XPG SX8200, Intel SSD 760P, Crucial P1, MyDigitalSSD SBX, and Samsung’s 860 EVO.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

Performance between the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro and 970 EVO Plus is very similar, but the BPX Pro's new firmware has given it a slight edge. The 970 EVO Plus beats its predecessor by over 100MB/s during the bandwidth test.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Load times have improved as well. The new 970 EVO Plus beats out the non-Plus by more than a second and the 860 EVO by over two seconds.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

The Adata SX8200 ranks first during the file copy test with a 26 MB/s lead over the 970 EVO Plus. The 970 EVO Plus takes a 50MB/s lead over the 970 EVO, which is a nice step forward.

The EVO Plus also leads our read performance test, notching a 100 MB/s gain over its predecessor.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

The 970 EVO Plus installed Sysmark in 894 seconds, which technically ranks in third place behind the BPX Pro and Intel Optane SSD 905P. There's only a three-second gap between the three drives, so the competition is close enough to call a tie.

The 970 EVO Plus beat the other drives in SYSmark's responsiveness score and comes surprisingly close to matching the Optane 905p. We also see a 25-point improvement over the standard 970 EVO. Overall, Samsung's EVO Plus proves to be a snappy drive.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The 970 EVO Plus is significantly faster than its predecessor in these synthetic read and write tests. Here the drive hit nearly 3.6GB/s during the read test and 3.3GB/s while writing data. Write performance proves to be the 970 EVO Plus's strong suit: it maintained a huge 1.2GB/s lead over the nearest competitor.

Anvil's Storage Utilities

Anvil's Storage Utility is a commonly-referenced benchmark that simplifies the complex IOMETER benchmark and its underlying Dynamo engine with a one-click software wrapper.

Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus leads during the Anvil’s Storage Utilities testing. Thanks to its blistering write performance and improved read performance, the EVO Plus beats the nearest drive by over 2,600 points.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

The 970 EVO Plus outperforms the competition during sequential tests, but random read performance is another story. The 970 EVO Plus has been far ahead of the standard 970 EVO in previous tests, but the EVO beats the Plus in the random write tests at a queue depth (QD) of 8. The EVO Plus does eke out a substantial lead over the rest of the test pool during the all-important random write test at QD1, which equates directly to system snappiness.

Samsung rates the 970 EVO Plus’s performance at up to 19K/60K read/write IOPS at QD 1, but we only achieved 13K/47K IOPS in our system with the Meltdown and Spectre firmware and software patches applied.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

As expected, Samsung’s Intelligent TurboWrite runs out after 24GB of data has been written at a rate of 3.1GB/s, then performance degrades to about 850-900MB/s. While this is much lower than the TurboWrite speeds, it is actually much faster than competing products and in line with Samsung’s official specifications.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

New SSDs are becoming more power efficient, and as expected, the Samsung 970 EVO Plus’s efficiency has improved, too. Just not by much.

The EVO Plus's idle power consumption is practically the same as the previous model with both ASPM enabled and disabled. We do see a substantial difference in active power consumption, though. During our 50GB file copy, we see a lower 6.12W maximum result and half a watt less power consumed on average. This represents an impressive 34% improvement in active power consumption!

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

1TB Performance Results

Comparison Products

We put Samsung’s 1TB 970 EVO Plus up against the new WD Black SN750, Adata’s newest SX8200 Pro, MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro with updated 12.1 firmware, and Intel's QLC-powered 660P. We also threw in the Samsung 970 PRO as an example of a top-performing SSD, while the Crucial MX500 slots in as a low-cost SATA comparable.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

The 970 EVO Plus lands it third place overall, just behind the new Adata XPG SX8200 Pro and the Samsung 970 PRO. Again, the 970 EVO Plus destroys the non-Plus model and even surpasses the Phison E12-powered BPX Pro.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

The 970 EVO Plus outperforms the 970 PRO by half a second and the 970 EVO by a full 1.5 seconds. It ranks third overall when compared to Intel’s Optane 905P, landing just milliseconds behind the XPG SX8200 Pro.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

With over 3.5GB/s read and 3.3GB/s write on tap, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus nearly takes first place from the Optane 905P and delivers the fastest copy result of any NAND-based SSD we’ve tested. It also takes first place during the file read test.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

Once again, the 970 EVO Plus installs SYSmark in 894 seconds. It lands in fifth place behind the Intel 905P, WD Black SN750, MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, and Adata SX8200 Pro, all of which tie for first with a three-second advantage.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The EVO Plus's sequential write performance goes unrivaled once again, but read performance could use a bit of improvement to match the PRO model in some of the file sizes. Overall, the 1TB 970 EVO Plus hits its rated speeds of 3.5/3.3 GB/s read/write.

Anvil's Storage Utilities

Anvil's Storage Utility is a commonly-referenced benchmark that simplifies the complex IOMETER benchmark and its underlying Dynamo engine with a one-click software wrapper.

As with the 500GB model, the 1TB 970 EVO Plus takes first place overall on the strength of its performance during write workloads. Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus outperforms its predecessor by over 2,500 points.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

Sequential performance surpasses the 3.5/3.3GB/s read/write ratings as the 970 EVO Plus takes the overall lead.

At QD1, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus leads the pack in sequential performance but lags behind the Silicon Motion-powered SSDs during the random read tests.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

After we wrote 42GB of data to the drive its performance fell to an average of 1.7GB/s for the remainder of the test, which is right in line with the official specifications. Except for the 970 PRO, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus wrote more data than the competing drives during the 15-minute write bombardment.

But that's only part of the picture. The Adata SX8200 Pro was actually faster up until the two-minute mark, writing 232GB of data while the 970 EVO Plus wrote 219GB. For typical consumer workloads, where read and write operations are done in short bursts, the SX8200 Pro proves to be a tough competitor.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

Like the 500GB model, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus shows improved efficiency under load by half a watt, but idle consumption remains the same. Here, competitors are proving they have what it takes to close the gap. Overall, the 970 EVO Plus ranks sixth.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

2TB Performance Results

Comparison Products

Today we pit the 2TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus against a few other 2TB-class competitors, as well as the highest-capacity Intel Optane SSD we have in our lab. We have the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, which boasts a Phison E12 NVMe controller and 64-Layer Toshiba TLC flash, along with the HP SSD EX950 that comes armed with Silicon Motion’s SM2262EN NVMe controller and Micron’s 64-Layer TLC flash. We also included the Samsung 970 PRO, but unlike the 970 EVO Plus, it comes in the highest capacity of just 1TB because it boasts faster MLC V-NAND. And, for fun, we added a 1.5TB Intel Optane SSD 905P, one of the fastest and most expensive storage devices in the market, as well as a 1TB SATA Samsung 860 EVO.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

The Intel Optane 905P is probably the fastest SSD you can buy for game loading, but regular flash-based NVMe SSDs still put up a good fight. The 2TB 970 EVO Plus delivers a fast load time of just under 19 seconds. This is a bit faster than the 2TB MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro and the 860 EVO, but the EVO Plus isn’t quite as fast as the Samsung 970 PRO or HP SSD EX950, both of which boast slightly faster random burst performance.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

Transferring and copying files to and from the 970 EVO Plus happens very quickly. Thanks to its high sustained sequential performance, it outranked the Intel Optane SSD 905P. The 970 EVO Plus took first place in both our copy and read test, outperforming every comparison drive in our test pool.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

Samsung’s 2TB 970 EVO Plus scored a respectable 5,098 points and averaged 670MB/s in the PCMark 8 storage test. Again, it ranks ahead of the BPX Pro but falls into fourth place, behind the Intel 905P, HP SSD EX950, and Samsung 970 PRO. However, the Samsung 970 EVO Plus is more than enough for most average home and office applications. Overall, it delivers a fairly speedy experience that is dramatically better than any HDD.

Trace Testing – SPECworkstation 3

Like PCMark 8, SPECworkstation 3 is a trace-based benchmark, but it is designed to push the system harder by measuring workstation performance in professional applications. The full suite consists of more than 30 workloads, but we've opted to only run the storage benchmark which uses only 15 of them and categorizes the results into five market segments for scoring: Media & Entertainment, Product Development, Life Sciences, Energy, and General Operations.

The massive write performance and Samsung’s optimized firmware help propel the 970 EVO Plus to third place during heavy workloads. Performance isn’t too far off from the 970 PROs, but NAND still can’t touch Optane’s ultra-low response times, which takes the lead in this test. The 2TB 970 EVO Plus is a great choice if you are looking for a cost-effective workstation upgrade.

Synthetics - ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus hits 3.5GB/s during sequential reads and comes in just behind the 970 PRO. With speeds of over 3.3GB/s during the sequential write test, it ranks as the fastest-writing SSD we have in our comparison pool.  

Synthetics - Iometer

Iometer is an advanced and highly configurable storage benchmarking tool that vendors often use to measure the performance of their devices.

Like we saw in ATTO, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus’s sequential performance beats the best of them. The drive peaked at 3.5/3.3GB/s of sequential read/write throughput, landing in first place. Random performance is also solid, but not quite as good as the HP’s or 970 PROs, which explains why they outpace the EVO Plus in game loading and other light application benchmarks. 

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We use Iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

The 2TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus features a pseudo-SLC write cache that is double the capacity of the 1TB model. After saturating it with 84GB of writes, the native direct-to-TLC write speed measures at a very high 1.7GB/s. This is 700MB/s faster on average than the Phison E12-powered BPX Pro, and outpaces the HP SSD EX950 once it’s SLC cache is saturated. However, while the Samsung 970 EVO Plus outperforms the HP SSD EX950 for the first 30 seconds and overall, the EX950's larger dynamic SLC performance is still quite competitive and actually pushes out higher write speeds for the first five minutes of the test.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

With the third-lowest average power consumption and the fastest file transfer speed we have come across in a 2TB-class SSD, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus rockets to first place on our efficiency chart. Max power consumption is well managed, peaking at 6.19W, and idle power consumption dips as low as 30mW, which is on par with the 1TB Samsung 860 EVO. Overall, these are pretty good results. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

We're quite impressed with Samsung's 970 EVO Plus. Like the WD Black SN750 we recently reviewed, Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus carries over the same controller as its predecessor. But instead of “refreshing” it with the same flash, Samsung decided it was time to switch things up a bit with its new 9x-layer flash. Just as the flash is stacked to new heights, it seems performance is hitting new heights, too. The resulting Samsung 970 EVO Plus is exactly what its name says: a big Plus.

As the first widely-available retail SSD to hit the market with Samsung's latest 9x-layer flash, the Samsung 970 EVO Plus delivers the performance of the 970 EVO, plus some more. The EVO Plus consistently proved that it has some of the strongest write performance on the market and can handle tough workloads. It even beat out Samsung’s own 970 PRO in a few tests, which is quite the feat considering the PRO slots in as Samsung's workhorse for workstation-class applications.

But the 970 EVO Plus doesn’t go unrivaled. Competing drives armed with Phison’s latest E12 controller and Silicon Motion’s new SM2262EN controller put up a good fight, closing the gaps Samsung once strived so hard to gain. And those drives don't have the latest 96-layer flash at their disposal, at least not yet.

The ADATA SX8200 Pro scored slightly higher in both PCMark 8 and SYSmark than the EVO Plus, largely due to its more impressive QD1 performance. Samsung has traditionally touted its superior low-QD random performance as a key differentiator for its devices, so the loss is notable.

MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro also proves to be a worthy adversary for those not looking to break the bank. It outscored the 500GB EVO Plus in PCMark 8, and both capacities kept fairly close to the EVO Plus throughout the rest of the testing. It has other things going for it, too. The BPX Pro is significantly cheaper than the EVO Plus and comes with almost triple the endurance rating.

But Samsung has something that these other SSDs don’t – a very strong track record of reliability. While this won't matter to some, to others, it means the difference between a purchase and a pass. Samsung has created an almost cult-like following over the years because of its reliability and performance. For many, paying a few dollars more over a competing product goes a long way to ease the mind.

Overall, Samsung’s new 970 EVO Plus offers you plenty of performance, endurance, and security. It comes backed with a five-year warranty, too. Samsung Magician and the data migration software are also a big plus. If you are ready to take on a new NVMe SSD for your PC, the Samsung 970 EVO Plus is a great buy.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

QLC Flash Gone Mild

7/15/19 Update: We've updated this article with new testing for the 500GB Crucial P1, as well as tweaked parts of the review to reflect current pricing.

Crucial's P1 is the company's very first NVMe SSD, but it is almost identical to the Intel SSD 660p we recently reviewed that came out around the same time. Just like the 660p, the P1 features Micron’s latest 64-layer 3D QLC flash and a Silicon Motion NVMe SSD controller.

The P1 breaks the SATA 6Gb/s barrier with its NVMe interface and delivers sequential throughput of up to 2/1.7 GB/s read/write, but we found that its real-world application performance is similar to the company's SATA MX500 SSD. Coupled with higher-than-anticipated launch pricing, the P1 was a tough sell in the ultra-competitive SSD market when it was brand-new. Its street price has slid down rather dramatically in the last several months, but so has that of its silicon sibling, the Intel 660p, as well as other competing drives. So despite lower prices the P1 is still tough to recommend, unless you see it on a sweet sale that brings the price down even further.

Crucial is the well-established consumer-facing brand of Micron, which is one of the few manufacturers of NAND flash. Being part of a NAND manufacturer ultimately means cheaper flash costs, and over the years Micron has passed that advantage to its customers by delivering competitive pricing and value. The company's most recent SSD, the MX500, is the epitome of its ability to deliver value and reliability. It delivers enough performance to satisfy most, comes with multiple accessories, a robust feature set, and usually costs less than most of its mainstream competitors.

That’s why anticipation has been building for the last year for Crucial's first NVMe SSD. With the company's track record, we surely thought it was going to be worth the wait. Well, today’s the day. We finally have the all new Crucial P1 in our hands, let's see how it fares in our testing. 

Specifications

Crucial’s P1 series delivers up to 2/1.75GB/s of sequential read/write throughput and up to 250,000/250,000 random read/write IOPS. As listed above, performance varies based upon the capacity of the drive. 

To achieve these speeds, the P1 uses Crucial's Hybrid-Dynamic Write Acceleration technology. The P1's firmware is exclusive to Micron, but the feature set is suspiciously similar to Intel's SSD 660p, which also just happens to come with the same components.

Like most modern SSDs, the P1 has an SLC buffer that absorbs incoming data to boost performance. Crucial's implementation takes a two-step approach to buffering. The drive has a fixed SLC buffer capacity of 5GB on the 500GB drive and 12GB on the 1TB model. In addition to the fixed buffer, the drive has a dynamic buffer that expands or contracts based upon the amount of data stored on the drive. This buffer can be located anywhere in the NAND array and consumes up to 14% of the usable capacity. That means the 500GB model should have a maximum buffer capacity of roughly 75GB and the 1TB model expands to 150GB.

The 500GB and 1000GB (1TB) drives are available at launch, but the 2TB model will come to market in November. Crucial's MSRP of $109.99 for the 500GB model and $219.99 for the 1TB model are higher than the Intel SSD 660p and most SATA SSDs but undercuts most other NVMe SSDs.

The P1 comes with a lengthy five-year warranty, but as we expect from a QLC SSD, endurance comes up short. The P1 can absorb 100TB of data writes per 500GB of SSD capacity, which equates to 200TBW of endurance for the 1TB model. That's the same endurance rating as Intel's QLC-powered 660p. However, the competition has stepped up its game. Many 1TB class NVMe SSDs have endurance ratings of up to 600TBW. Some SSDs, like Corsair's new MP510, offer more than eight times more endurance than the P1. Even Crucial’s own MX500 offers almost twice the endurance.

The P1 supports the NVMe low power states, so active power consumption is rated at just 100mW and stretches up to a maximum of 8W. It also has an impressive 80mW idle power consumption rating. The P1 also features power loss protection for data-at-rest and has a multi-step data integrity algorithm that protects against data loss. Crucial's Adaptive Thermal Protection protects the components from overheating, and the RAIN (Redundant Array of Independent NAND) feature provides device-level data redundancy as a further layer of protection.

Unlike many new SSDs, including the Crucial MX500 and Intel SSD 660p, the Crucial P1 doesn't support AES 256-bit hardware encryption.

Software and Accessories

Crucial offers Acronis True Image HD software, which you can use to clone over your OS from your old drive or for backing up your data, and its Crucial Storage Executive software. The Storage Executive software provides SMART value monitoring, capacity monitoring, and performs firmware updates. The software also enables Crucial's Momentum Cache, which is a RAM caching program that absorbs incoming random write data and flushes it to the drive as sequential data. That improves both performance and endurance.

A Closer Look

The Crucial P1 is an NVMe 1.3 compliant SSD that communicates over a PCIe 3.1 x4 connection. It comes in an M.2 2280 form factor and both the 500GB and 1TB models are single-sided, meaning all the components are on one side of the PCB. The 2TB model has components on both sides of the PCB (double-sided) and is a bit thicker. The SSD comes with a blacked-out PCB, which is a nice touch, but the white sticker on top doesn't match the color scheme, and you can't remove it without voiding your warranty.

The Crucial P1 comes equipped with the four-channel Silicon Motion SM2263EN controller that limits it to a maximum of 2GB/s of throughput. Silicon Motion's pricier eight-channel SM2262/2262EN controllers are faster, but you'll only find those on more expensive SSDs. 

The 1TB model comes with two NAND packages filled with 128GiB dies and has 931GB of usable capacity after formatting in Windows. The drive also uses a DDR3 buffer to accelerate the Flash Translation Layer (FTL). All models have 1MB of DRAM per 1GB of NAND. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

1000GB Performance Results

Comparison Products

We put the 1TB Crucial P1 against a few very competitive options. Of course, we have the Intel SSD 660p that has the same components and is basically the same drive. We also have the Plextor M9Pe, Samsung 970 EVO, WD Black, Adata XPG Gammix S11, and MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro. These represent most of the mainstream NVMe options available. We also threw in the Crucial MX500, a SATA drive, to gauge the performance of the more expensive NVMe products. 

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

The P1’s first result is rather alarming. The P1's total score of 4970 points and the average bandwidth of just 301MB/s is nearly the same as the best SATA drives. In fact, despite its faster NVMe connection, the P1 barely outperforms the SATA MX500. The P1's NVMe-based competition, however, scores much higher. 

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Most flash-based drives load the StormBlood benchmark in 21 to 22 seconds. The Crucial P1 scores the lowest total time of 21.97 seconds, but the difference between the fastest and slowest flash-based SSDs is slight. In either case, it's clear that any SSD is much faster at loading games than any HDD.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

If you want to transfer a bunch of files of various sizes, the Crucial P1 can handle that without a problem. It isn’t the fastest drive in the test pool, but the 288MB/s average in our copy test is respectable. The Crucial P1 is very similar to the 660p during our read test, reminding us that these drives are built from the same basic building blocks.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It uses fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

The Crucial P1 installed SYSmark in 15 minutes and 32 seconds, outperforming the WD Black and the Intel 660p by nearly a minute. The Crucial MX500, however, was six seconds faster. After the SYSmark run, the Crucial P1 scored 1600 points in the responsiveness test. On its own, that is almost three times faster than an HDD. But the SSD competition is faster, including the SATA-based MX500.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro takes the overall win in this test. Once again, the Crucial P1 is very similar to the Intel 660p, though it does have higher read performance and slightly lower write throughput. We do see the advantage of the NVMe interface in this test, though: The P1's read and write throughput are three to four times faster than the SATA-based MX500.

Anvil's Storage Utilities

Anvil's Storage Utility is a commonly-referenced benchmark that simplifies the complex IOMETER benchmark and its underlying Dynamo engine with a one-click software wrapper.

The Crucial P1 outperforms Intel 660p, but lands in sixth place overall. The P1's slower sequential performance lands a tier below some of the other mainstream competitors. 

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

Crucial’s P1 exhibited strong 4K random performance at a QD (Queue Depth) of 1. The drive is also strong in the all-important QD 1 to 4 range. It also meets its QD32 specification, but this heavy workload is irrelevant for most desktop file transfers.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

The Intel 660p is faster than the P1 for the first 20 seconds of this heavy write workload, but after that, the P1 took the lead until the buffer was full. Crucial’s P1 wrote 149GB of data before its write speed degraded from 1.7GB/s down to an average of 106MB/s. Overall, this is an impressive result in a worst-case scenario, but you won't be able to take advantage of the P1's full write speed unless you're transferring files from an equally fast storage device.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

The P1 consumed just under 700mW with ASPM disabled, and just barely 11mW after we enabled the feature.

The P1 consumed an average of 2.53W of power during our 50GB file transfer. That's slightly more power than the MX500, but you get almost twice the performance in exchange. The P1 also had the lowest maximum power consumption. The P1's efficiency measurement of 114MB/s per watt is also plenty impressive, but Intel's 660p is slightly better.                            

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

500GB Performance Results

Comparison Products

Going up against the 500GB Crucial P1, we have a few popular competitors. Starting off, the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro and Gigabyte Aorus RGB both feature Phison E12 NVMe controllers and 64L Toshiba TLC NAND. As well, we have the Adata XPG SX8200 and Intel SSD 760P, which both feature Silicon Motion SM2262 NVMe controllers and IMFT 64L TLC NAND. Additionally, we threw in the Samsung 970 EVO Plus, which has their Phoenix NVMe controller and the Samsung 860 EVO, a SATA based SSD for referencing. Finally, we added a PCIe 3.0 x2 device, the MyDigitalSSD SBX, to see just how much better the P1 can be with its PCIe 3.0 x4 link.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

Crucial’s P1 scored the lowest out of the bunch here. With a total score of 4895 points and an average bandwidth of 229MB/s, performance is even less than the SATA based Samsung 860 EVO. The QLC NAND isn’t looking too good. This NAND and a rather expedited SLC cache folding algorithm are what are keeping the P1 from scoring higher.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Game load time is rather good for the , on the other hand. While it wasn’t able to outperform the 860 EVO in PCMark 8, our Final Fantasy load time benchmark shows a rather speedy result of 20.85 seconds. This ranks it 5th overall and proves that the P1’s PCIe NVMe interface can deliver improved performance over its SATA based competition at game loading, though it isn’t as drastic as an SSD vs HDD.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

As well as performing well in our game load test, Crucial’s P1 performs well in our real-world file copy and read tests, though there is some room for improvement. The SLC cache was enough to handle our 50GB file folder and rank it fourth overall on our chart. The 6GB read test shows performance that is more than double what SATA SSDs are capable of, but is much lower than many of the better-performing NVMe competitors.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

The Crucial P1 took a bit longer to install SYSmark than competing NVMe SSDs, but not by much. With a total install time of 15 minutes and 12 seconds, it ranks ahead of the Samsung 860 EVO and surprisingly, the Intel SSD 760P. After the initial installation, however, the Intel SSD 760P scored very well. The P1 on the other hand, scored a little better than the 860 EVO, but much more responsive than the MyDigitalSSD SBX.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

The Crucial P1 hit its sequential performance specs of 1.9/1GB/s read/write in its ATTO run. It did rather well with smaller files too. Compared to the MyDigitalSSD SBX, the performance difference is almost night and day on the ramp-up curve. While the P1 is in line with most competitors up until the 16KB file size, the SBX lags far behind until it hits the 128KB file size.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

As we saw in ATTO, the Crucial P1 delivers similar performance numbers of 1.9/1GB/s in CDM. This is at a rather high QD of 32, so, pulling things back down to a QD of 1 reveal a bit lower read performance, 1.4GB/s, but basically, the same 1GB/s write performance.

Looking to 4K random speeds, we hit 93K IOPS read and 240K IOPS write at a QD of 64. Testing at a more realistic QD of 1 shows performance numbers of nearly 16K IOPS read and 42K IOPS write. This is rather impressive and proves to be a good margin better than the Phison E12 powered SSDs. It even outperforms the ever so expensive 970 EVO Plus in read performance.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

Crucial’s P1 features a rather large SLC write cache. It helps the SSD to absorb about 73GB of data at a rate of 1GB/s before it fills. This is sufficient for most consumer workloads, but after that, performance suffers drastically. We all know when you add more bits to a NAND cell, write performance suffers without an SLC cache. But in the Crucial P1’s case, performance is dreadful. After its SLC cache exhausts, the native direct to QLC write speed is just 60MB/s on average.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

Crucial’s P1 is rather power efficient. At idle it sips just 11mW when ASPM is enabled in the UEFI. With it disabled, it sips 0.6W, which is about the same as the Samsung 970 EVO Plus.

During our 50GB file copy, it consumed on average 2.4W of power, tying the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, as well as tying that drive for an efficiency score of 109MB/s. With a slightly faster copy speed, here it even edged up to first place overall.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

Intel's 660p debuted just a few weeks before the P1 as the first consumer SSD to feature QLC flash. It proved that with enough tweaking and the right pricing, QLC NAND could be competitive despite its lower endurance. The 660p makes the jump to a QLC SSD a bit easier, but the Crucial P1, which features the same components, isn't as convincing.

With synthetic specifications of up to 2/1.75GB/s of sequential read/write throughput, it seems like the Crucial P1 is a faster alternative to the Intel 660p and any SATA-based drive. But while synthetic testing tells you some of the basic capabilities of a drive, real-world application testing tells all. Unfortunately, the Crucial P1 came up short at times during our real-world testing. Times where it matters.

Our goal is to measure the real-world performance that you'll see during daily use. As part of that ethos, we test the drive as a boot volume and fill it to half of its capacity to mirror real-world operating conditions. This process can reduce SSD performance, and the Crucial P1 didn't live up to our expectations under those conditions.

We reached out to Crucial about the lower than expected results. Crucial and Silicon Motion are investigating the issue and a possible fix. In their testing, the 500GB Intel 660p exhibited similar behavior when half full, too. We do not have a 500GB 660p model to verify their findings, but our 1TB Intel 660p did not slow down as much when we filled it to 50% of capacity. We also retested an empty P1 and found that it scored similarly to an empty Intel 660p.

Both Intel and Crucial say their firmware is separate of one another, but with such similar performance between the two drives, we surmise that both are based heavily on Silicon Motion’s firmware.

The P1 scored as low as some SATA SSDs during our PCMark 8 testing, while the Intel 660p was nearly twice as fast. The Crucial P1 also displayed SATA-like performance in SYSmark and lagged the competition in the responsiveness test. Conversely, the P1 installed SYSmark quickly, was agile during our file transfer tests, and was on par with other SSDs during our gaming test. The P1 also displayed stellar sequential write performance during our write saturation test.

Still, pairing this mostly lower application performance with comparatively higher pricing doesn’t make things easy on the P1. Sure, it is faster than a SATA SSD most of the time and is significantly better than any HDD, but competition is brutal in the SSD market.

While the pricing of both the 660p and the P1 have dropped dramatically since launch, the P1 is still slightly more expensive than the Intel 660p. To become competitive, Crucial’s P1 needs a bump up in performance and a better price. If you want faster performance and have room in your budget, the Adata XPG GAMMIX S11, Samsung EVO, and WD Black are better options. The MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro or Corsair Force MP510 are good choices if you're looking for more endurance. Even among low-cost QLC-based NVMe drives specifically, we think the Intel 660p is a better choices if you're on the hunt for a value SSD.

Photo Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Power Up Your Storage

Silicon Power has saddled its latest SSD with the fairly generic moniker of PCIe Gen3x4, so we'll be referring to it by part number, P34A80, instead. Today we’re testing the 1TB capacity and at this size, performance is quite impressive. With rated 3.4/3 GBps sequential read/write speeds, this snappy little guy will speed up your system without a doubt, and it's cheaper than most of its competition.

Silicon Power’s P34A80 features Phison’s E12 NVMe controller, paired with Toshiba’s BiCS3 64L TLC NAND flash. Just as with many of the SSDs we have seen with this combination of components before it, like the the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, the P34A80 is quite the capable device. Aside from the impressive rated sequential speeds, it also sports up to 390K and 450K IOPS read and write on our 1TB sample.

The P34A80 is available in capacities from 256GB to 1TB at this time. The company has a 2TB SKU, which Silicon Power says will be available sson. At 109.99 for our 1TB sample, or just $0.11 per GB, this drive is quite affordable. The 512GB and 256GB models aren't that much pricier, at $0.12 and $0.15 per GB respectfully. At these prices, the Silicon Power P34A80 simply screams value, and should be a top consideration if you're concerned about balancing speed and price.

The Silicon Power drive comes with all the performance you could ask for from a high-end TLC based SSD, and  at a similar cost to those QLC based SSDs like the Intel SSD 660p and Crucial P1. What’s not to love?

Well, in order to bring such low prices to the market, there were some corners that Silicon Power cut. Luckily for consumers, there are no deal-breakers. While not officially stated on their website at this time, the P34A80 does come with endurance ratings. Typically, we would expect endurance ratings of ~380TBW, 800TBW, and 1700 TBW for the 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB Phison E12 powered devices. But Silicon Power seems to be more conservative in their ratings.

Specifications

The 256GB model is rated for up to 125TBW, and this figure doubles as capacity doubles, meaning 250 TBW on the 512GB model and 500 TBW of endurance on our 1TB model. This is low for a TLC drive, but most don’t write more than 20GB-30GB of data a day to their devices, so running out of endurance isn’t as likely as you running out of warranty time first. Speaking of which, the Silicon Power P34A80 comes backed by a 5-year warranty, rather than a 3-year warranty like some of the other Phison E12 based SSDs we have reviewed recently.

As well, the P34A80 boasts standard features like S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, TRIM, and support for Format NVM /secure erase commands, but does not come with OPAL or Windows BitLocker support.

Software and Accessories

Silicon Power has an SSD toolbox available for download on their website. You can use it to monitor your device's health, performance, and even secure erase. But at the time of writing, V3.0.1.0 doesn’t seem to support the P34A80.

A Closer Look

Silicon Power’s P34A80 comes in an M.2 2280 form factor. Our 1TB sample is double-sided, meaning components are on both sides of the PCB. Unlike most M.2 SSDs out now, the PCB isn’t black, instead, it is blue. The company threw a dark sticker over top of the drive, but with a scan code and other distracting elements on it, it is well…rather distracting. Something labeling the opposite side would easily remedy.

As mentioned earlier, the Phison E12 NVMe controller is powering this SSD and there are four Toshiba BiCS3 NAND packages in all. Also, there are two 512MB DDR4 DRAM package for the controller to use for caching the File Translation Layer (FTL). Once formatted in Windows, the end user has 953GB of free space to use.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

1TB Performance Results

Comparison Products

We put the P34A80 up against its near twin, the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro as well as a few other top contenders. From Samsung, we’ve added results from the 970 EVO Plus and 970 Pro. We also included the WD Black SN750 and Adata XPG SX8200 Pro. And for final reference, we’ve added in the Crucial P1, and entry-level NVMe SSD based on QLC NAND and the mainstream SATA SSD, the Crucial MX500.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

Silicon Power’s P34A80 mirrors the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro in performance here. With speeds of almost 3.5/3.0 GB/s read/write, it hits its rated specs with ease. Only the Samsung 970 EVO Plus capable of surpassing its write speed, although some of its competitors were a bit faster with smaller file sizes during this test.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

Crystal Disk Mark confirms the sequential performance of 3.4/3GB/s, just like we saw in ATTO. This performance is at a high QD, however, and is unrealistic. Dialing things back down to a queue depth (QD) of 1, we see that the P34A80 is capable of just 2 GBps read and write speed.

As well, we see that 4K performance hits 382K/496K IOPS read/write at a QD of 64. This is very high performance, but it doesn’t help us gauge the device’s real-world application performance. For that, we look to smaller QDs, like 1-4. At QD1, where 80-90% of your workloads will land, the P34A80 delivered over 13K IOPS read and 43K IOPS write, which lands it in fifth place overall. QD2-4 show it is on par with most other devices.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

Because it has a Phison E12 NVMe controller at its heart, we know the Silicon Power P34A80 features an SLC write cache. After testing, we can see that it is capable of absorbing up to 24GB of data at 3GBps before performance degrades to native direct to TLC write speeds. This matches the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, although it does so without the extra overprovisioning. After the cache fills, write performance will degrade to just over 1GBps until it has a break to recover. Here it ties for fourth place overall.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Like most Phison E12 powered SSDs, the P34A80 isn’t a leader in this test, rather it lands dead last in our comparison pool among SSDs. This leaves a 3-second gap between it and the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, our fastest flash-based device in the comparison. So, overall, while it is in last place, a difference in three seconds isn’t too significant, and the Silicon Power drive is still much faster than an HDD.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like pictures, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6GB file.

Our 1TB Silicon Power P34A80 was able to copy our 50GB file folder at a rate of 281MBps. This is about the same as the BPX Pro, but overall ranks it as the slowest NVMe SSD in the group. It is, though, twice as fast as the SATA based MX500 here. As well, during the 6GB file read test, it scored second place, just behind that of the Samsung 970 PRO.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

The Silicon Power P34A80 achieved an overall score of 5,103 points and an average bandwidth of 705MBps here. The Silicon Motion SM2262EN powered Adata XPG SX8200 Pro managed to squeeze out a little more application performance on this test, but the P34A80 is still a high-end contender and lands in fifth place overall, just behind the Samsung 970 EVO Plus.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

Similar to what we saw with PCMark 8, in SYSmark 2014 SE the Silicon Power P34A80 ranks between the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and the WD Black SN750 again.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

With an average power consumption of 2.88 watts, Silicon Power’s P34A80 it ranks sixth in our power efficiency test. It hits a max of 5.11W, which isn’t too high. At idle it consumes 621 milliwatts with ASPM disabled, but once enabled this amount decreases significantly to just 50mW. Overall, it is a bit more power hungry than the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, but is still rather well regulated.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

Silicon Power’s latest PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 NVMe SSD lacks a creative name, but that doesn’t mean it is any less worth looking into. As a matter of fact, it should be high up on your list if you are in the market for a new SSD today. It’s actually a great buy.

Performance is just as expected, given it's powered by Phison’s E12 NVMe controller and Toshiba BiCS3 TLC NAND flash. That's an established pairting that we've seen in drives before, to there wasn’t much mystery around how it would perform. In our testing, it basically mirrored the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, another E12 powered SSD, and delivered high-end performance overall. While its write speed degrades to 1GBps, this is significantly better than that of some others like the Intel 660P or even any SATA SSD.

The P34A80 comes backed with a 5-year warranty, which is great to see. But, because of its lower prices, endurance takes quite the hit. At 500TBW, our 1TB P34A80 has slightly lower endurance than that of the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, WD Black SN750, and Samsung 970 EVO Plus, and about a third the endurance of the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro. That's definitely something to keep in mind if you plan on regular workloads that hammer the drive with lots of writes.

Aesthetics could use some improvement too. While Silicon Power’s P3485 model features a small and quite attractive looking heatsink overtop, like many other products out there, the P34A80 we have here today could use some better looks. Placing a product SKU overtop is not the way to impress customers looking to put their drive in a windowed case. Likewise, the lack of up-to-date software support is an issue, which we hope the company will correct soon.

But, these minor qualms can't overshadow the P34A80’s value. Silicon Power’s P34A80 is a high-performance device, but its prices aren’t reflective of such. At just $0.11-0.15 per GB, depending on capacity, the drive is even cheaper than the QLC based SSDs at some capacities.

I’d recommend this over similarly priced QLC drives like the Intel 660P or Crucial P1 any day of the week. You get higher performance and endurance for essentially the same price. Again, what’s not to love about that?

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

One Fast Cookie Cutter SSD

Team Group’s M.2 NVMe MP34 is one of the hottest values out in the SSD market today. At just $0.15-$0.16 per GB, it's one of the cheapest Phison E12-powered SSDs we’ve seen. While it lacks originality, it will definitely help to bring your system up to speed, alongside some of the best. Great performance mixed with very competitive pricing makes the MP34 a killer value. That said, low pricing also comes with a lack of accessories and a rather short 3-year warranty.

In many ways, Team Group’s MP34 isn’t all that special. There’s no flashy RGB lighting or included heatsink. In short, it's just another cookie cutter Phison E12 design with Toshiba's BiCS3 TLC NAND flash. The main difference we see between it and others is that the Team Group drive utilizes DDR3L DRAM instead of DDR4. Interestingly enough, it doesn’t hinder the MP34’s performance, nor does the fact that it doesn’t have much factory over-provisioning. As a matter of fact, the MP34 actually trades blows with the MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, which has DDR4 DRAM and is over-provisioned.

This brings up the question: Just how much does over-provisioning matter to most consumers? From our experience, the answer is not a whole lot. Usually, the controller will still be able to utilize the free space for garbage collection and other background tasks without issue. It only becomes a problem if you fill the drive all the way up or pound it with the heaviest of workloads, like the stuff you would see going on in servers.

Loading games, office productivity, and browsing the web hardly qualify as taxing workloads in the least for most SSDs. Even heavier use cases such as using it as a cache device for 4K media production and virtual machine hosting won’t slow this bad boy down much at all. So, without any extra overprovisioning, end users still get great performance as well as a bit of extra capacity to boot.

Specifications

Team Group’s MP34 is available in capacities of 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB. At the time of this writing, those capacities are priced at $42, $75, and $160 respectively. At prices like this, there should be no excuse to use an HDD for your OS ever again.

Team Group hugely underrates the device’s performance. They state it is only good for up to 3GB/s read and 1.7GB/s. However, in our testing it performed just like the rest of our E12 based samples; up to 3.5/2.1GB/s read/write. Random performance is also hugely underrated. The drive is rated for up to 190K/160K IOPS, but our 512GB sample delivered over 300,000/485,000 IOPS read/write at a QD of 64.

Where the company didn’t underrate this drive was in respect to write endurance. While high-end SSDs like the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and WD Black SN750 are rated for up to 300TB written at the 500GB capacity, the budget-friendly MP34 is rated for almost triple that, up to 800TBW. The 1TB option is even rated for over 1.6 petabytes written. With high endurance like this, what’s not to love? Well, there’s a catch. While it is rated for higher endurance, it comes with warranty coverage of just three years, while most premium, speedy drives in this class are covered for five years.

Software and Accessories

Team Group, like many others, offers end users support via an optional SSD Toolbox download as well as an NVMe driver, both for Windows 7-10. With the toolbox, you can monitor the SSD’s S.M.A.R.T. data and lifespan. It even has data migration built in, but that option is only for use with SATA SSDs as per the support document. So in testing with this drive, we were unable to use it, just as expected.

A Closer Look

Team Group’s MP34 comes in an M.2 2280 form factor which utilizes a PCIe 3.0 x4 connection to the host and communicates via the NVMe protocol. Our 512GB sample is single-sided, meaning it only has components on one side of the PCB.

The PCB itself is blue and the sticker on top is rather unappealing aesthetically. This is to be expected of a cheaper SSD, but better looks with a black PCB would have earned it a few more brownie points. As mentioned earlier, it features Phison’s E12 NVMe controller and Toshiba BiCS3 64L TLC NAND flash as well as a single DDR3L DRAM package for caching the device’s file translation layer.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We'll be comparing the Team Group MP34 against some popular competition. Rocking the same Phison E12 controller as Team Group's drive, we have results from the MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro and Gigabyte Aorus RGB. With their own in-house built NVMe controllers, the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and WD’s newly revised Black SN750 represent their respective companies’ latest and top-end products to date. Additionally, we’ve included the SMI SM2262-powered Intel 760p and the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, the latter of which which features the updated SM2262EN controller. The Crucial P1 features an SMI SM2263 controller and QLC NAND. Finally, we’ve thrown in results from a Samsung 860 EVO to show any advantages these NVMe SSDs have over their SATA-based SSD siblings.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

Team Group's MP34 does very good in PCMark 8. With an overall score of 5,101 points and an average bandwidth of 693MB/s, it lands in third place. It even bested Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus by a hair. The MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro was able to edge out with a single point more in score, thanks to its extra over-provisioning, which helps to deliver consistent performance with heavier workloads. But, as we can see, even without overprovisioning, the Team Group MP34 is impressive.

Game Scene Loading - Final Fantasy XIV

The Final Fantasy XIV StormBlood benchmark is a free real-world game benchmark that easily and accurately compares game load times without the inaccuracy of using a stopwatch.

Like the performance in PCMark 8, the MP34 did well in our game load test. It is light-years ahead of any HDD with a total time of 22.33 seconds vs over 36 seconds. The Team Group drive is competitive with other options out there, but overall the difference between one SSD to another, even something of the SATA flavor like Samsung’s 860 EVO, isn’t much.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with our own custom 50GB block of data. Our data set includes 31,227 files of various types, like photos, PDFs, and videos. We copy the files to a new folder and then follow up with a read test of a newly-written 6 GB file.

When it comes to file transfer performance, nothing can beat the Intel Optane SSD 905p, but some can come close. The MP34 performed fairly average in our 50GB file copy test. Overall, it ranks in 6th place and bested the Aorus RGB, but was outperformed by the ADATA SX8200 Pro, BPX Pro, Samsung 970 EVO Plus, and even the Crucial P1. In read performance, it did a bit better. It came in close second, just behind the Samsung 970 EVO Plus to read our 6GB test file, and outscored the other E12 based options.

SYSmark 2014 SE

Like PCMark, SYSmark uses real applications to measure system performance. SYSmark takes things much further, however. It utilizes fourteen different applications to run real workloads with real data sets to measure how overall system performance impacts the user experience. BAPCo's SYSmark 2014 SE installs a full suite of applications for its tests, which includes Microsoft Office, Google Chrome, Corel WinZip, several Adobe software applications, and GIMP. That also makes it a great test to measure the amount of time it takes to install widely-used programs after you install a fresh operating system.

Team Group’s MP34 installed SYSmark 2014 SE without a hitch. It came in fourth place, tying the Aorus RGB, and was only two seconds slower than the Intel 905p. After we put it to the test, it returned a fantastic responsiveness score of 1716 points, which was almost on par with the Intel 760p and Samsung 970 EVO Plus yet again.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

In ATTO, the MP34 delivers essentially the same performance as any other E12 based SSD, up to 3.5/2.1GBps read/write.  This outperforms the Crucial P1 and Intel 760p, but the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro beats it slightly in writes and Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus comes out triumphant with its monster read and write performance.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use file size benchmarking tool.

As we saw in ATTO, the MP34 is able to deliver essentially 3.5/2.1GBps read/write speeds. This is at an unrealistically high queue depth of 32, but at a more realistic QD of 1, it does very well too; about 2.1/2.0GBps read/write.

4K random performance, like sequential performance, was very underrated. Rather than only being able to deliver upwards of 190/160K IOP read/write, our tests show it is much more capable. With performance numbers reaching upwards of 302K/485K IOPS read/write, it lands second place in random performance. At more realistic lower QDs, it is fairly average. At QD1 it delivers about 13/43K IOPS read/write.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement an SLC cache buffer, which is a fast area of SLC-programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside of the SLC cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. We hammer the SSDs with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the SLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

The MP34 would be an odd drive out if it didn’t feature an SLC write cache to help boost write performance. In our testing, it was able to absorb about 12-14GB of data before slowing down from 2.1GBps to an average of 675MB/s. While this is great and ranks it third overall in write performance, the BPX Pro’s SLC cache bests it by giving users an extra 12GB before it slows down.

Power Consumption

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is a very important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a new drive for your laptop. Some SSDs can consume watts of power at idle while better-suited ones sip just milliwatts. Average workload power consumption and max consumption are two other aspects of power consumption, but performance-per-watt is more important. A drive might consume more power during any given workload, but accomplishing a task faster allows the drive to drop into an idle state faster, which ultimately saves power.

Power consumption is well regulated. Just one thing stands out: During our 50GB file transfer, the drive consumed about the same amount of power as the other E12 based SSDs, but hit a slightly higher maximum. This is probably due to the 1.35v DDR3L DRAM cache rather than the 1.2V DDR4 DRAM cache the others have. Luckily, this didn’t impact its efficiency score, where it averaged 90MBps per watt. As well, at idle it consumes ~0.4W when ASPM is disabled and about 53 milliwatts when it is enabled.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

Compared to other E12 based SSDs we've tested, Team Group’s MP34 is one of the best-performing to date. It does exactly what you would expect it to do: read and write your data fast.

And, it gives you an extra ~30GB of capacity over the 480GB BPX Pro. But the BPX Pro’s extra factory over-provisioning helps it to absorb twice the amount of data under writes before its SLC cache fills. Still, in most of our application tests, the difference in SLC cache size didn’t matter. Only during our large, 50GB file copy test did we see much difference between the two. And, actually, in SYSmark 2014 SE, the MP34 performed better, which is even more surprising given the Team Group drive's DDR3L DRAM cache instead of the DDR4 on most competing modern SSDs.

The MP34 isn’t much for looks. With a blue PCB and a black-and-white sticker on top of it, it can stick out like a sore thumb in an otherwise visually pleasing build. It also lacks a heatsink, which is something the new ADATA S11 Pro, WD Black SN750, Gigabyte Aorus, and Patriot Viper VPN100 all include. But the lack of a cooler didn't hurt performance, and its absence here means you get a drive that's cheaper. When you're pinching pennies to build your new rig, saving a few bucks on NVMe storage means you'll have more to spend on other components.

The only thing you really lose with the MP34 over competing drives is some warranty coverage. While other, high-end NVMe SSDs offer 5-year warranties, the MP34 is covered for only 3-years. But during those three years, you can bombard the heck out of this drive and still stay within you coverage limitations. Your typical desktop usage will bring in about 20 gigabytes of writes or so a day on average, or 7-8TB a year. Our 512GB sample is rated for 800TBW and the 1TB over 1,600TBW. With endurance figures that are almost triple that of competitors, you have little to worry about when it comes to write endurance.

Not everyone has the cash for the best drive, like the Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus, let alone something even more pricey from Intel in the Optane flavor.  If you're in the market for a solid, no-frills SSD be sure to add this to your short list. The Team Group MP34 is one of the best values available if you're are looking for fast NVMe SSD on a tight budget.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Bringing Portable Convenience to NVMe SSDs

DIY hard drive and SSD enclosures are an uncomplicated way to build an external drive of your own, and they're convenient little devices to repurpose your older storage for your on-the-go lifestyle, or they're great for just plain old backup purposes.

But there is a sea of different models to choose from. Most are differentiated by the type of drive the enclosure supports, the interface of choice for connecting to the host, and thermal considerations. You wouldn’t want to spend good money on a slow USB 2.0 enclosure, or one that overheats and kills your drive, would you?

It's also important to consider if the enclosure requires any tools or screws. If using tools is something you dread, or if you have a lot of drives you are going to install and uninstall in the same enclosure, a tool-free design can be very convenient. Almost every external enclosure that I personally use is a tool-free design, and I’d have it almost no other way.

We recently reviewed the MyDigitalSSD M2X, a USB Type-C to M.2 NVMe SSD enclosure, and were rather impressed with its performance, but sadly, it wasn't a tool-less design. That’s where Plugable’s new USBC-NVMe SSD enclosure comes in with a tool-free design that brings convenience back to the table.

Specifications

Plugable’s enclosure can transfer data at up to 10Gb/s, or upwards of about 1GB/s, courtesy of the USB Type-C interface, USB 3.1 Gen 2 spec, and the USB Attached SCSI Protocol (UASP). The enclosure is compatible with USB Type-A and Thunderbolt 3 ports, too, but is limited to 5Gb/s on USB Type-A (USB 3.1 Gen 1) ports.

The enclosure supports TRIM and S.M.A.R.T. attribute passthrough. Additionally, it is compatible with M.2 M-key SSDs ranging from 30mm in length up to 80mm.

The unit is typically fully bus powered, so no extra cables are needed besides the single USB Type-C cable. The drive does work on USB 2.0 ports, but some SSDs may require more power than USB 2.0 can provide. In that case, the enclosure may not work.

Accessories

Speaking of which, the USBC-NVME enclosure comes with one USB Type-C to -C cable and one USB Type-C to 3.0 cable, both of which are 25cm in length. Plugable also includes three replacement SSD rubber locks, which are used for quick installation. The enclosure also includes “optional” adhesive thermal pads, but we recommend using them to help keep your drive cool.

Closer Look

The small unit is powered by a JMicron SMS583 controller and measures 99mm x 42mm x 13mm. The enclosure weighs in at 1.7 oz (48g) without an SSD installed. We also see a few slots on the side of the heatsink that help dissipate heat.

Installing an SSD is quick and simple. Just press the unlock switch at the bottom of the unit, pop off the heatsink shell, and pop in your M.2 SSD.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Performance Results

Comparison Products

We're using MyDigitalSSD’s BPX Pro inside the Plugable enclosure. Rated at over 3GB/s read/write, the BPX Pro will have no issue saturating the adapter's 10GB/s link. We've also included two Thunderbolt 3 devices, the 1TB G-Technology G-Drive mobile Pro SSD and 1TB Patriot Evlvr. We also threw in SanDisk’s 1TB Extreme Portable SSD, which also features a USB 3.1 Gen 2 link speed but is limited to SATA performance. Finally, we included two DIY USB 3.1 Gen 1 external drives using a WD Blue SSD and HDD.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

Compared to the normal performance of the BPX Pro, we can see that the USB interface hampers performance with small files. But, just as expected, the Plugable USBC-NVMe delivers 1GB/s of sequential throughput for both reads and writes.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use storage benchmarking tool.

Plugable’s USBC-NVMe enclosure achieved a little over 900/953 MB/s of sequential read/write speed at QD 32, which is similar to the M2X’s performance.

At QD1, however, performance fell to 500/475 MB/s read/write. The Plugable's 4K random performance hit 24/39 MB/s, which is, again, very similar to the M2X enclosure.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

DiskBench is a storage benchmarking tool that allows us to test the transfer or copy performance of a storage device with real data. We test external drives with three file transfers that consist of 25GB of photos (10GB of iPhone jpgs and 15GB of RAW photos from a Canon 6D), 50GB of movies, and 25GB of documents. First, we transfer each folder from a 1TB NVMe SSD to the external device; then we follow up by reading a 3.7GB 7-zip file and a 15GB movie back from the device.

The Plugable enclosure is similar to the M2X, but it offers a clear advantage over standard USB enclosures and even SATA-based external SSDs. Thunderbolt 3 is still king, however. With performance that is more than double during the photo and documents transfers, they are the fastest devices on the market. But they do come with a healthy premium.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

In PCMark 8, Thunderbolt 3 proves to be the fastest, but the little Plugable enclosure paired with a BPX Pro still did well. Overall, with a total score of 5008 points and an average bandwidth of 317MB/s, it easily tops the performance of the SATA-based externals.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

Recently we took a look at the MyDigitalSSD M2X, a pretty cool USB Type-C SSD enclosure that houses M.2 NVMe SSDs. Like the M2X, the Plugable USBC-NVME enclosure offers portability for just about any NVMe SSD, but it features a tool-free design.

The Plugable USBC-NVMe delivered performance right in line with its specs. The drive proved to be plenty speedy during file transfers, easily surpassing any SATA-based external, but it still lagged the faster, and more expensive Thunderbolt 3 devices.

We also conducted some extra file transfers to and from the Plugable enclosure using the M2X adapter. Both enclosures sustained single-video file transfer speeds of 700-720MB/s and peaked at 850MB/s when transferring 2-3 folders simultaneously via independent drag-and-drops.

The adapters were both warm to the touch after the test, but not what we would consider excessive after transferring 300 GB of data. Both enclosures hovered in the ~50C range, though the Plugable USBC-NVME enclosure was 5 to 6C hotter under load. It was also 3C hotter at idle (41C vs. 44C).

We ran into problems when we connected the drive to an older Z170 motherboard with a Thunderbolt 3 AIC from ASRock (Intel JHL6540 chipset). Unfortunately, there was some delay during device detection. Additionally, the external enclosure would disconnect during some transfers. The M2X adapter suffers from this same issue. We've followed up with both vendors for more information.

Overall, this device is convenient for re-purposing older NVMe SSDs. The enclosure enables the full throughput of the USB interface while keeping the installed drives cool, even under heavy workloads. That, along with the friendly price point, makes the Plugable USBC-NVME a good option if you're searching for an economical and speedy DIY enclosure.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Photo Credit: Tom's Hardware

Pocket your NVMe SSD

Today we’re taking a close look at the MyDigitalSSD M2X, a USB 3.1 Gen 2 to M.2 NVMe SSD enclosure. At $40, this external is three to four times more expensive than SATA to USB 3.1 Gen 1 enclosures or adapters, but unlike those, the M2X allows you to unleash even more performance by installing almost any M.2 NVMe SSD within a matter of minutes.

NVMe SSDs are all the rage. Performance in excess of 3 GB/s is now the norm, but interfaces and enclosures have had limited performance improvements as SSDs have gotten faster.

As a storage reviewer, I have a lot of internal SSDs that I don’t even know what to do with. Many of them end up in cheap do-it-yourself (DIY) USB 3 external enclosures for backup and various other tasks, like disk imaging and transferring large data sets between my laptop and desktop.

Years ago, I dreaded waiting for transfers to complete over USB 2.0, that’s why USB 3.1 Gen 1 and its 5 Gb/s transfer speed was a godsend. For years the speedy interface, paired with SATA SSDs, transferred hundreds of gigabytes of movies, pictures, and other various data within a reasonable amount of time. But more speed is always welcome for these tasks.

The USB 3.1 Gen 1 interface, however, is showing its age because SSDs now bottleneck the interface. That’s why the more recent introduction of USB 3.1 Gen 2 and the USB Type-C connector is so exciting–the speedier interface doubles performance up to 1 GB/s and can carry much more power over a single reversible cable.

Now we can pocket an NVMe SSD within a speedy little external enclosure. External drives like the M2X are becoming more common, and after today’s review, it might be time for you to indulge in one, too.

Specifications

MyDigitalSSD’s M2X is rated for USB 3.1 Gen 2 speeds, or 10Gb/s. In practical use, that means you can hit around 900 to 1,000 MB/s+ of throughput depending on the exact USB 3.1 Gen 2 port controller your system has and the SSD you use.

The enclosure accepts PCIe M.2 M-key NVMe SSDs ranging from 42mm to 80mm in length. SATA-based M.2 SSDs, like the Crucial MX500, and AHCI-based PCIe SSDs, like the older Plextor M6e or Kingston HyperX Predator, are not compatible.

The M2X is bus powered and plug and play, so you won't need additional power cables or drivers. Additionally, the device supports SMART passthrough as well as the performance-boosting UASP protocol. Windows detects any installed device as an SSD volume, so you can "Optimize" or TRIM the NVMe SSD just as you could if it were connected to a normal M.2 slot on your motherboard. MyDigitalSSD also backs the drive with a one-year warranty.

Accessories

The MyDigitalSSD M2X External USB 3.1 PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD enclosure includes a 1x 12 inch 3.1 USB-C to USB A cable, 1x 12 inch 3.1 USB-C to USB-C cable, M.2 SSD thermal pad (70 x 20 x 2mm), 1x M.2 SSD Mounting Screw Kit, and even a mini screwdriver to aid with installation.

Closer Look

The M2X uses the JMicron JMS583 controller. This is a PCIe 3.0 x2 to USB 3.1 Gen 2 bridge chip that allows NVMe SSDs to communicate over the USB protocol.

NVMe SSDs consume multiple watts of power at full speed, so thermal performance is also an important aspect. The whole enclosure is made of aluminum and has fins integrated into the design to aid with heat dissipation, yet it is small enough to easily fit into your pocket (99mm x 42mm x 13mm). It is also light at just 1.7 ounces (48 g). A small white activity light next to the USB Type-C port illuminates during data transfers.

The M2X is not tool-less, so you will need to unscrew the enclosure to install your NVMe SSD, but it is a fairly quick task. Simply unscrew the exterior screws and push the internal PCB out. Screw in the included brass standoff to the appropriate position to match the length of your NVMe SSD and attach your drive. Then apply the included thermal pad and slide the PCB in and screw the ends back in place.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Performance Results

Comparison Products

We installed MyDigitalSSD’s latest BPX Pro NVMe SSD to test the external enclosure. Rated at over 3 GB/s read/write, the BPX Pro will have no issue saturating the adapter's 10GB/s link. For reference, we’ve also included three Thunderbolt 3 devices, the 1TB G-Technology G-Drive mobile Pro SSD, 1TB Patriot Evlvr, and 1TB Samsung X5. Additionally, we threw in SanDisk’s 1TB Extreme Portable SSD, which also utilizes a USB 3.1 Gen 2 link but is limited to SATA performance. Finally, two DIY USB 3.1 Gen 1 external drives armed with a WD Blue SSD and HDD round out the test pool.

ATTO

ATTO is a simple and free application that SSD vendors commonly use to assign sequential performance specifications to their products. It also gives us insight into how the device handles different file sizes.

Compared to the native NVMe performance of the BPX Pro, the adapter provides a bit less performance at the smaller file sizes. But read and write speeds come in at 1GB/s for the 128K file size, matching our expectations. This is double the SanDisk Extreme portable and far exceeds the performance of our DIY externals that lack UASP support.

CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark (CDM) is a simple and easy to use storage benchmarking tool.

As was with ATTO, the M2X adapter allows the BPX Pro to hit sequential speeds of nearly 1 GB/s. Scaling the load back to a QD of 1, which represents a dragging and dropping a single file, the M2X adapter seems to be limited to 500 MB/s read/write. While lower than the rated 10 Gb/s, this still exceeds the SanDisk Extreme’s performance of 364/400 MB/s read/write. Additionally, 4K random performance took a big hit compared to native speed, but overall, the drive is still decent for an external.

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

DiskBench is a storage benchmarking tool that allows us to test the transfer or copy performance of a storage device with real data. We test external drives with three file transfers that consist of 25GB of photos (10GB of iPhone jpgs and 15GB of RAW photos from a Canon 6D), 50GB of movies, and 25GB of documents. First, we transfer each folder from a 1TB NVMe SSD to the external device; then we follow up by reading a 3.7GB 7-zip file and a 15GB movie back from the device.

Like in our previous tests, the M2X surpasses both the DIY and pre-built SATA-based externals. During the 25 GB Photo and 50 GB Movie transfer, the M2X ranked behind the Thunderbolt-enabled devices but edged away from the other USB devices in the pool. During the transfer of 25 GB of document files, however, the SanDisk Extreme's faster 4K random speed helped it take the lead.

The M2X enclosure delivered speeds of about 840 MB/s during our two file reading tests.

Trace Testing – PCMark 8 Storage Test 2.0

PCMark 8 is a trace-based benchmark that uses Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, World of Warcraft, and Battlefield 3 to measure the performance of storage devices in real-world scenarios.

Without the adapter, the BPX Pro scored 5103 points and an average bandwidth of 704MB/s. Using the enclosure essentially halves the performance. But, overall, its total score of 5013 points and an average bandwidth of 326MB/s is faster than any internal SATA SSD we have tested yet. That makes it a good choice for video editors looking for a new scratch disk when internal expansion proves difficult.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

Games are constantly expanding due to increased texture sizes and larger data sets that drive better graphics. Our video and RAW photo files are also growing with each new camera release, so our data is growing from gigabytes to terabytes at a consistent pace. With such large volumes of data, it helps to have a faster interface to transfer it all.

Thunderbolt 3 is the fastest option available, but it is much more expensive than competing interfaces. If you have an extra NVMe M.2 stick laying around, MyDigitalSSD’s M2X enclosure is a great little DIY external enclosure. While not as fast as Thunderbolt 3-equipped devices, the MX2 still enables transfer performance up to 1 GB/s over the USB 3.1 Gen 2 interface, making it a much faster option than run-of-the-mill USB 3.1 Gen 1 enclosures.

MyDigitalSSD developed the MX2 with both speed and thermal performance in mind. The finned aluminum design helps a lot with heat dissipation. We transferred 100 GB of data to and from the device, yielding acceptable temperatures that ranged from the high forties to mid-fifties (C) at most.

We only have one reservation with the MX2: We also tested the enclosure with a Z170 motherboard equipped with a Thunderbolt 3 AIC from ASRock (Intel JHL6540 chipset) and experienced a delay during device detection. The external enclosure also disconnected during some transfers even though its thermal readings stayed within the safe zone. Although the JMicron chip itself could have been overheating, it never disconnected from our main test system which features a fairly new ASMedia ASM3142 controller. We aren't sure if this problem is specific to the JHL6540 chipset, but we have noticed similar complaints in Amazon reviews. We're following up with the company for more information, but you should take this into consideration if you have a motherboard with the Intel JHL6540 chipset.

If you need more performance from your external storage or have an old NVMe SSD sitting around, check out MyDigitalSSD’s M2X USB-to-NVMe adapter. At $40, it is a killer deal compared to alternatives that are $20 to $40 more expensive.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Photo Credit: Tom's Hardware

MyDigitalSSD is asking the age-old question: does a dongle by any other name smell just as sweet? (Or something like that.) We're used to dongles bridging the gap between headphones, USB connectors and the like. Now a much larger one is going to let you use your NVMe SSD as external storage.

The new M2X USB 3.1 Gen 2 M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD Enclosure Adapter lets you connect an NVMe SSD to your system via USB so you can get maximum performance from your external storage when a Thunderbolt port is unavailable. Actual performance will vary based on the SSD and USB generation used, but the enclosure's basic premise remains the same no matter what NVMe SSD you decide to put in it or what system you connect it to.

MyDigitalSSD said the M2X is fully bus-powered and features a heatsink that "combats high heat issues commonly found in small form factor SSDs and ensures peak performance even under heavy use." It's also operating system independent and compatible with M 2242, 2260, and 2280 form factor SSDs. According to the company, that means the M2X supports up to 2TB of storage.

The company also said the M2X's JMS583 USB 3.1 Gen 2 to PCIe Gen3 x2 bridge controller offers data transfer speeds up to 10Gbps. You won't see that kind of performance, though, if you take advantage of the enclosure's support for USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 connections. Then you'll be limited by those previous-generation capabilities--but at least you won't have to worry about your data being inaccessible via anything other than USB 3.1 with the M2X.

The M2X USB 3.1 Gen 2 M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD Enclosure Adapter is available now from Amazon for $40. It comes with a one-year warranty, a foot-long USB 3.1 Type-C cable, and a foot-long USB 3.1 Type-A cable. You will, of course, have to supply your own NVMe SSD if you want to store anything.

MyDigitalSSD’s anticipated BPX Pro M.2 PCIe 3.1 x4 NVMe SSDs have arrived, with capacities up to 2TB.

The new MyDigitalSSD BPX (short for Bullet Proof eXpress) Pro series SSDs feature the latest second-generation Phison E12 controller and Toshiba BiCS3 TLC NAND flash, which in combination offer sequential read and write speeds up to 3,400MB/s and 3,100MB/s, respectively, in addition to fast 4K random performance. The E12 controller also supports AES-256, TCG Opal and TCG Pyrite encryption (for secure file access) and APST, ASPM and L1.2 power saving modes (used for maximizing notebook battery life).

There are four new drives in total, all of which run on the NVMe 1.3 protocol and sport an M.2 2280 form factor with a PCIe 3.1 x4 interface. The SSD comes in 240GB, 480GB, 960GB (1TB) and 1920GB (2TB) capacities and are backed by a five-year, 3,115TBW (terabytes written) warranty.

The new MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro M.2 PCIe 3.1 x4 NVMe SSDs are available for preorder from various online retailers (including Amazon and MyDigitalDiscount) priced at $99.99, $149.99, $279.99 and $599.99 for the 240GB, 480GB, 1TB and 2TB models, respectively. The drives are set to ship mid-September.

MyDigtialSSD makes products for the working person. The New York-based company is as far away from Silicon Valley's lavishness as you can get. You won't find a parking lot full of exotic cars at the company's office, if you can even find the office at all, because MyDigitalSSD streamlines every aspect of the company to improve efficiency and keep prices low for shoppers.

We've tested branded SSDs from MyDigitalSSD for years, but it was the MyDigitalSSD BPX that put the company on the mainstream map. With the BPX, MyDigitalSSD entered the high-performance market to compete with Adata, Corsair, Patriot, and others. The BPX was the lowest priced Phison PS5007-E7 SSD and it held a massive price gap to products like the Corsair MP500 and Patriot Hellfire M.2. At one point, the BPX 480GB sold for nearly $100 less than similar products. That's why for most of 2017 the MyDigtialSSD BPX was the best value in NVMe storage for many of our readers.

Fast forward to 2018 and MyDigitalSSD is ready to take on the California-based companies again in the Phison E12 era.

"Testing the limits of PCIe 3.1 data transfer, MyDigitalSSD Bullet Proof eXpress (BPX) Pro NVMe SSDs offer Read and Write speeds in excess of 3GB/sec with blistering 4K random speeds. MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro series 2280 M.2 feature the new Phison E12 controller, Toshiba BiCS3 TLC NAND flash, and a NVMe 1.3 interface for improved performance with cooler idle temperatures of 25°C, compared to 45°C from the original BPX. Available in 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB storage capacities, BPX Pro 2280 M.2 NVMe will begin shipping this summer with a 5-year limited warranty." - Matt Dawson, CEO MyDigitalSSD

Dawson wasn't ready to talk pricing, but he did say the BPX Pro will be very competitive. He went on to say the BPX Pro will not only outperform many mainstream NVMe SSDs that cost more, like the Samsung 970 EVO, but will close the gap to ultra-performance models like the Samsung 970 Pro. MyDigitalSSD also sees an opening in the 2TB class after Samsung failed to bring the 970 Pro to market with a 2TB option.

We're excited to see what the company can do this summer with Toshiba's BiCS FLASH. Pricing scales and the numbers are in MyDigitalSSD's favor, and a BPX Pro 2TB could make this capacity a real option for value-driven shoppers.

Features & Specifications

For the last year, we've heard faint rumblings about new Thunderbolt 3 NVMe SSDs that should be the most powerful portable storage products ever made. Finally, several vendors displayed new Thunderbolt 3 SSDs in many shapes and sizes at this year's CES. Today we test the first truly portable unit to hit the market.

Intel plans to slap Thunderbolt technology on nearly every new desktop and notebook that comes out this year. Most mainstream and premium notebooks shipped over the last two years featured the technology, but it's been a struggle on the desktop side. That might change in the future. The rumor is that Intel will eventually bring Thunderbolt to the CPU die. When that happens, it will reduce the cost for motherboard and system builders to enable the high-speed peripheral interface because they won't need a dedicated chip.

There is a mad rush to design Thunderbolt-capable products as companies look to take advantage of the speedy interface. Storage is the obvious choice, but other markets have also taken notice. Thunderbolt's pass-thru capabilities allow you to daisy chain devices. DisplayLink signals also pass through the new low-cost Type-C cables, so you can even place monitors in the chain. Professional hardware, like advanced audio interfaces with multiple ins and outs, will soon come to Thunderbolt. We may even see digital recording devices like high-resolution video cameras come with the interface.

The awesome power of Thunderbolt will eventually revolutionize the professional A/V market, but it all starts with storage.

Specifications

* 32Gbps Data Transmission

The TEKQ Rapide is roughly the length and width of a credit card, but it is quite a bit thicker (12mm). The build quality is impressive with tight tolerances and the kind of precision you would expect from a part coming out of a Formula One machine shop. It all starts with a solid block of aluminum that goes through a milling process before a laser etches the text on the bottom.

TEKQ will ship the Rapide in three capacities that range from 240GB to 960GB. An Intel Thunderbolt bridge chip resides inside the enclosure and provides a PCIe 3.0 x4 connection to the SSD. TEKQ has said it might release a DIY enclosure option without a drive, but it hasn't brought that product to market yet.

The three existing models use the Phison PS5007-E7 controller and Toshiba 15nm MLC flash. The combination was very common in low-cost consumer SSDs for all of 2017, but 15nm flash production wrapped up in early 2018. TEKQ hinted at a possible second-generation enclosure with the upcoming Phison E12 NVMe controller.

All three capacities share the same performance ratings. The sequential read performance tops 2,700 MB/s and the MLC flash pushes sequential writes up to 1,700 MB/s. The drive delivers up to 300,000/250,000 read/write IOPS, but you won't be able to hit those numbers with typical workloads.

The performance specification is apparently relative. The retail package lists 2,300 MB/s for sequential reads and 1,300 MB/s for writes. The package also states in another section that it provides 'up to 2,500 MB/s depending on computer."

Features

The Rapide is completely bus-powered through the Thunderbolt 3 Type-C port. It will not work with USB, including USB outfitted with a Type-C connector that delivers higher amperage than older USB specifications.

The small size, relatively low weight, and robust construction make this drive extremely portable as well as strong enough to survive a destructive event that would cripple a typical portable disk drive. 

Pricing & Warranty

Pricing varies depending on where you find the TEKQ Rapide. The company has a campaign on Indiegogo right now with discount pricing of $255, $383, and $712 for the 240GB, 480GB, and 960GB drives, respectively. The Rapide is $319, $479, and $899 on Amazon. We obviously prefer the lower prices.

TEKQ didn't release an endurance rating for the Rapide drives. It would be difficult to reach the limit of Toshiba 15nm MLC flash during the one year warranty period, but the warranty is short compared to other a consumer/prosumer SSDs. The disappointing warranty may push some users to the DIY version when it comes to market.

Accessories & Software

The TEKQ Rapide ships with a nice Thunderbolt 3 cable with Type-C connectors on each end. All you need to get started is Intel's Thunderbolt driver.

Packaging

The TEKQ Rapide package is very sleek for a device sold primarily online. The full-color box lists the performance specifications and features.

A Closer Look

The drive is truly stunning for those of us that appreciate high-quality construction. It starts off as a single piece of aluminum and then moves through CNC machines that mill the groves that increase surface area for cooling. There is a PCIe 3.0 x4 bridge chip inside the enclosure along with the SSD. TEKQ outfits the drive with thermal pads between the components and the aluminum, so the entire enclosure acts as a heat sink. This is not a typical stamped steel, plastic, and rubber portable SSD that comes from the big box stores.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Benchmarks & Conclusion

Comparison Products

Last year, the MyDigitalSSD BOOST and SanDisk Extreme 900 battled it out for the title of the fastest USB 3.1 Gen 2 SSD. USB is still the dominant interface for portable storage, but Thunderbolt will gain market share over the coming years. The TEKQ Rapide isn't the first new Thunderbolt NVMe portable SSD we've tested. That honor goes to the Netstor NA611TB3 enclosure that we tested with two Samsung 960 Pro 1TB SSDs earlier in 2018. The NA611TB3 enclosure requires external power, which makes its portability questionable.

The only hard disk drive in the review comes from LaCie. The Rugged RAID is the only portable disk-based solution we've tested that can compete with these flash drives. Its performance comes from a pair or HDDs running in RAID 0 that provide enough grunt to run sequential workloads faster than you might think possible.

We pulled in a handful of our other favorite portable SSDs, including the Adata SD700, Samsung T3, Samsung T5, and the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable. The MyDigitalSSD BOOST is the fastest in the USB group because it comes from the factory with two OEM-grade Samsung mSATA SSDs.

Block Size Testing

Storage testing seems complicated, but it really isn't. Data typically comes in a range of block sizes and files larger than 128KB are broken down into 128KB blocks. Operating system drive accesses tend to largely consist of small 4KB chunks of random data, while portable storage devices are mostly used for large-block sequential transfers. 

The write test shows us a smooth transition with the TEKQ Rapide as we move up to larger blocks, but the drive has lower read performance than we expected with 64KB blocks.

Full LBA Span Performance

These tests read and write to the entire usable space of the drive with 128KB sequential data. These tests show us what it would be like to copy one large file to the drive. It also exposes possible performance degradation as the drive fills. An HDD-based storage device like the LaCie Rugged RAID slows as the drives move from fast outer tracks to the slower inner tracks.

SSDs can slow down as you put more data on the drive, but the condition doesn’t impact sequential performance as much as it does random data.

The TEKQ Rapide is the fastest portable storage device we've ever tested. The drive is even faster than the NetStor NA611TB3 loaded with a single Samsung 960 Pro 1TB NVMe SSD. This may not change the world, but it will change the amount of equipment some A/V professionals take with them on location. 

File Transfers

We don't run many application tests on external or portable storage products because the typical workload is sequential in nature. Most of us simply read and write large pieces of data for archiving or transferring data from one location to another.

We often see performance measured in throughput, but time-based results are easier to interpret because the sense of time is universal. We tested transfer performance with a Blu-ray ISO. For the Game test, we used rFactor to transfer data from the post-installation directory to the portable drives. The Directory Test is a 15.2GB block of data that contains a mix of images, software installations, ISO files, and multimedia.

The NVMe protocol was designed to streamline high-speed storage by reducing latency. Thunderbolt wasn't made for NVMe specifically, or vice versa, but the two complement each other very well.

Our real-world transfer tests show us how the marriage of these high-speed technologies works. The two best results in each of the tests are with drives that leverage both Thunderbolt 3 and NVMe. The TEKQ Rapide outperforms every other product with ease. In each test, the Rapide takes roughly half the time to transfer the file than the leading USB 3.x drive.

Conclusion

We've talked about Thunderbolt 3 NVMe storage devices coming to market for the last six months. Intel lifted the Thunderbolt licensing fees and encouraged third-party IC makers to develop new chips that support the technology. That's led to an explosion in development, but it's just the first phase. Over the coming year, we will see more new desktops and notebooks support Thunderbolt as the technology spreads beyond high-performance systems and professional workstations.

The TEKQ joins just three other products on the market with this magical combination. The Sonnet Technology Fusion Thunderbolt 3 PCIe Flash Drive only ships in a 1TB model and costs $1000.00. It is physically larger than the Rapide. Other World Computing (OWC) also has two portable NVMe models with the interface: the $600 1TB Envoy Pro EX and the $980 1TB Envoy Pro EX VE.

The TEKQ is one of the early Thunderbolt 3 storage products, but it will be awhile before we see broad uptake of the interface. At CES 2018 we saw several NVMe-based storage announcements from companies like Lenovo, HP, and Dell. Eventually, Thunderbolt juggernauts LaCie (now part of Seagate) and G-Technology (A Western Digital Company) will also march into this segment. None of these companies have an interest in reducing Thunderbolt 3 NVMe portable SSD pricing, so it will be expensive until companies like Adata enter the market. Bare enclosures will also help when they come for the DIY crowd.

The TEKQ differs from other Thunderbolt 3 SSDs due to its superior 15nm MLC flash. The company's partner made a large strategic purchase of Toshiba 15nm MLC flash. Most 64-layer TLC flash has a difficult time keeping pace with the older planar MLC flash during write workloads. The two technologies are comparable in high-capacity drives, but MLC still has an advantage in low capacity models.

The TEKQ Rapide is the fastest portable storage device money can buy. The design is beautiful, and the prices are acceptable, but there are a few things to point out. The drive ships formatted with the exFAT filesystem. The file system ensures cross-platform compatibility, but it doesn't support TRIM in Windows. You need to format the drive to NTFS to take advantage of TRIM, but you will lose compatibility with Apple PCs.

The enclosure can get more than a little warm under heavy use. It won't start a fire, but you shouldn't put it in your pocket right after transferring several gigabytes of data to the drive. The good news is the case does exactly what it was designed to do, which is to act as a large heatsink.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Features & Specifications

Update 3/2/2018: We have added the 256GB and 128GB capacities to the original review, which only included the 512GB drive. The review of the 256GB and 128GB drives begins on page three. Our conclusions have also been updated on page four.

Intel's 760p NVMe SSD is the successor to the company's 600p, which is an SSD that's admired more for its price than performance. The new 760p comes with bold claims of twice the performance and capacity of the 600p along with half the power consumption. Better yet, the 760p series retains the same entry-level SSD pricing model even though it sports up to 3,200 MB/s of throughput and 350,000 random read IOPS. Intel claims the 760p offers an amazing mix of performance and price, so this just might be the NVMe SSD we've been waiting for.

Intel has an established history of low failure rates, solid performance, and, to tie it all together, premium pricing. It's not like Intel to release true value SSDs that undercut other companies on price, so it was surprising when Intel's previous-generation 512GB 600p challenged the MyDigitalSSD BPX at the $200 price point. The 600p suffered from low performance, though, so Intel had to market it as a SATA replacement.

The 600p's performance issues stemmed from its first-generation 3D NAND. We tested several SSDs with Intel's inaugural 3D NAND, but regardless of the SSD controller, the drives suffered from high latency. The 3D NAND came from the IMFT (Intel/Micron Flash Technologies) joint venture, and thankfully, the second generation has improved drastically. We've tested several new SATA SSDs with the new 64-layer flash and performance has increased to class-leading levels while prices have decreased. That's a win-win.

The Intel SSD 760p is the first retail NVMe SSD we've tested with Intel's new 64-layer flash. The low-overhead protocol should expose the true potential of the storage media by removing the bandwidth limitations of SATA.

Silicon Motion, Inc.'s new SSD controller is a key piece to the performance puzzle. The company has three different SM226x models that address different market segments. Intel's 760p uses the SM2262, which is an upper mainstream variant that we never expected to see at these low price points. The entry-level SM2263XT HMB controller already impressed us even though it was designed it for DRAM-less SSDs. The Intel SSD 760p with the SM2262 should perform even better.

Specifications

The Intel SSD 760p comes to market in 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB capacities. Intel will roll out 1TB and 2TB models later this quarter. These models are just one hop away from fulfilling Intel's "3.5 TB SSD the size of a stick of gum" prophecy it made when it announced its 3D NAND in 2016.

Intel's performance claims teeter on the absurd. The 760p 512GB delivers up to 3,200/1,670 MB/s sequential read/write speeds. Random read performance stretches up to 350,000 IOPS for the larger models, paired with an 'up to' 280,000 random write IOPS. These are the same performance numbers we see with products that cost twice as much. Intel also effectively doubled the 600p's performance while using only half the power.

Performance shrinks as we move through the smaller models, but even the 128GB drive pushes enough performance across the PCI Express bus to outperform the fastest SATA SSDs ever built. It appears that Intel wants to replace SATA SSDs as the boot drive in your PC.

Features

Once you get past the high performance and low price, the 760p series is a fairly basic consumer SSD. The consumer model doesn't feature encryption or a fancy heat sink. Intel did release a business-focused 760p model today that provides accelerated TCG Opal 2.0 and eDrive hardware encryption technology. The business model also enables Intel's Remote Secure Erase through vPro Platform Security.

We had to dig into Silicon Motion's SM2262 documentation to gain further insight into the new features. The eight-channel SM2262 controller improves on the previous generation and serves primarily as a vessel to bring 64-layer NAND to market. SMI carried over most of the IP from the previous-gen SM2260 controller, but there are some subtle differences to the caching algorithms that help increase performance in random workloads.

Most of the real features go unseen in the flash. The move to 64 layers is more than a normal generational evolution: throughput increases, latency decreases, and Intel cut the physical size nearly in half. The number of bits per wafer exploded, and that's why the 760p is coming to market with such aggressive pricing even though Intel could have easily charged more for this product.

Pricing, Warranty & Endurance

The 760p starts at $74 for the 128GB model. The 760p matches the 600p's launch pricing, but the price of some popular capacities increased over the last year. The 256GB 600p currently sells for $139 at Newegg, but the equivalent 760p will cost just $110. The 512GB 760p comes to market at $199 and has a real chance at becoming our go-to NVMe SSD recommendation.

Keeping with the 600p model, Intel also gave the 760p a five-year warranty and the same 72TB of endurance per 128GB of capacity. We haven't tested the 760p's full endurance like we did on the previous generation, but we expect that Intel will adhere to its policy of moving the drive to a read-only state after you exhaust the warrantied endurance.

Software

The new SSD 760p works with Intel's SSD Toolbox software that gives you monitoring and optimization features. Aside from added support for new drives, the software hasn't changed much since its release. Intel also has a data migration tool tucked away on its website, but we had to poke around to find it.

Packaging

The 760p doesn't feature RGB LED lighting like the new Plextor M9Pe, but it does have a vibrant color scheme on the package. In a way, the package tells the 760p story. The 760p graphics are the same as the 600p, but Intel has managed to make those graphics come alive this time around.

Intel didn't print much information on the package. The back of the package displays the five-year warranty, but it lacks performance data. Now that the NAND shortage is over, the SSD section at Best Buy and Fry's should consist of more than two products in the middle of barren shelves. Performance is a true highlight of this series, and giving shoppers easy access to information would make it easier to browse products lined up in the store.

A Closer Look

The top of the controller features a thin copper plate with a nickel finish that helps dissipate heat to the outer surface. The label doesn't have a copper strip inside like the layered label that Samsung pioneered (and Corsair later adopted). 

The 512GB drive pictured above has a single-sided design that comes packing dual NAND and DRAM packages. The NAND arrangement is typical for this design, but the two 256MB Micron DDR4 packages are not. Most SSDs only use one DRAM package for lower-capacity drives. We're in the middle of a DRAM shortage, so the design could lower costs, especially in the high-capacity drives coming later this year. Intel also tells us controller can issue parallel operations to the dual DDR4 packages. That capability improves translation table lookup times, which increases performance.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

512GB Class Performance

Comparison Products

Many of the products in our tests will cease to exist in the coming months. Toshiba, Western Digital, Intel, Micron, and Samsung all have new 64-layer flash. The older planar and 32-layer production has stopped except for guaranteed availability contract work.

The Corsair Neutron NX500, Intel 600p, MyDigitalSSD BPX, Toshiba RD400, Samsung 960 Pro, and Western Digital Black PCIe all fall into the outgoing category. The Plextor M9Pe and Samsung PM981 join the 760p with new 64-layer flash. The Samsung PM981 is an OEM drive currently shipping in new notebooks at a premium price point. The drive gives you some insight into what you should expect when you spend upwards of $400 for a 512GB OEM NVMe upgrade.

The Samsung 960 Pro is almost a novelty. It's one of the most expensive NAND-based SSDs on the market, but it shows us what's possible with our test systems. We can point to the drive as the performance leader in many of the tests, but it also costs much more than the other products.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

We immediately noticed the increased performance at low queue depths (QD) with SMI's new SM226x controllers. Intel matches the Samsung PM981 OEM SSD at QD1, but it doesn't make it to the same level as the 960 Pro (with MLC flash).

The 760p beats the MyDigitalSSD BPX (our current go-to NVMe SSD recommendation) by more than 1,000 MB/s. The improvement over the 600p is even more impressive. Intel's 760p also leaped over several very good NVMe SSDs at low queue depths.

The drive also delivers impressively high throughput when you read several sequential files simultaneously.

Sequential Write Performance

Sequential write performance is consistent across the queue depth range during our new burst testing. The 760p is nearly three times faster than the outgoing 600p and twice as fast as the Western Digital Black PCIe. We measured nearly 1,400 MB/s at QD2, which is representative of performance you'll see with smaller files.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Larger file transfers are much slower. The 760p 512GB writes 128KB data at ~550 MB/s after you saturate the SLC cache. The smaller 760p models will be slower in this workload, and there isn't a guarantee that the larger drives will be faster. This is still a very acceptable result even if you transfer files over a 10-gigabit network or from a high-speed Thunderbolt 3 device.

Random Read Performance

The Intel SSD 760p doesn't look like a stellar SSD if you only focus on the line graph. You have to look at the low queue depth bar chart to spot the 760p's very aggressive performance at the all-important QD1.

Random Write Performance

We see the same type of result in the 4KB random write test. The 760p's peak performance isn't very special. In fact, the drive doesn't speed up much after QD2. The 760p's performance at QD1 is only slightly better than the previous generation, but it's much faster than most other entry-level NVMe SSDs.

70% Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

The 760p improves upon the 600p's QD2 mixed sequential performance by nearly 300 MB/s. Intel's new 64-layer NAND is much better for mixed workloads than the first-gen 32-layer.

70% Mixed Random Workload

The performance improvement carries over to our mixed random workloads. The 760p only trails the Samsung drives. These results should be representative of real application performance in your desktop or notebook PC.

Sequential Steady-State

The 760p is a pure consumer SSD, and the pricing reflects that. Some users may want to run the drive in a workstation environment, but we don't recommend even light professional applications due to the relatively low endurance rating.

Random Steady-State

We measured a noticeable improvement in both performance consistency and average performance in a worst-case environment. The new SMI controller no longer suffers the massive performance spikes that come from SLC buffer flushing. We would recommend the 760p to users looking to build a RAID array. This series should also work with Intel's vROC feature on X299 motherboards.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

Despite all the improvements, we only measured a moderate gain in application performance over the previous-gen 600p. It's very difficult to make large gains here because the operating system is still highly optimized for HDDs.

Application Storage Bandwidth

The 760p falls to the lower end of the mainstream SSD performance ladder, but it's an improvement over the 600p. This is where pricing evens the field a bit.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The 512GB 760p recovers quickly after a session of heavy data writes. Not every SSD makes the transition as quickly as this drive. The Plextor M9Pe is a good example—it needs more than five minutes to process background activity and perform cleanup operations.

Total Service Time

The 760p recovers just as well as the other mainstream products. After the recovery, the drive completes the workload nearly twice as fast as the 600p. The 600p and 760p have the same price, so we consider this a victory for Intel. The company hasn't generated a lot of positive news for its flash recently, so it's nice to see them back on track.

Disk Busy Time

The service time tests measure how long it took the system to complete the tasks, but the disk busy time results show how long the drives were actually active. It's easy to see how much the 64-layer Intel NAND improves on the 600p's older 32-layer. The new model can run heavier workloads without falling on its face. The 600p produced a poor user experience during heavy workloads, but the new drive corrects those issues.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE Responsiveness Test

We were able to add more consumer NVMe SSDs in these tests. There are more products available than ever before as we transition away from planar and 32-layer 3D technology (48-layer for Samsung). The older models will eventually sell out, leaving the new drives to battle for your hard-earned dollars.

The system responsiveness test runs in our Lenovo Y700-17 gaming notebook under AC power. We measure power at the system level, but we're focused on the responsiveness score. The older 600p delivers a better result than the 760p, which is odd.

BAPCo MobileMark 2012.5 Notebook Battery Life

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The 512GB 760p performed very well when our Lenovo Y700-17 gaming notebook was on battery power. Lenovo didn't design this notebook with long battery life in mind, but an SSD gives you more usable battery time than the pre-installed hard disk drive. The 760p would have performed very well in our recent SSD battery life roundup. It's one of the few drives capable of delivering long battery life and high performance when the PCIe bus is running at a reduced rate.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

256GB And 128GB Class Performance

Comparison Products

We're focusing on Intel's 256GB and 128GB 760p models in this section. We also have the 128GB MyDigitalSSD SBX. These are the two new low-cost NVMe products that make up the value-focused segment of the market. We rarely test 128GB-class products, but these two are worth your time.

The Drevo Ares is the only SSD in our test pool with an add-in card form factor. This low-cost NVMe SSD never caught on with enthusiasts. The MyDigitalSSD BPX was 2017's value leader. It comes armed with Toshiba 15nm MLC flash and the Phison PS5007-E7 controller. The 256GB SBX, its PCIe 3.0 x2 successor, also makes an appearance. Samsung's 960 EVO and Toshiba's RD400 round out the list.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

The smaller drives provide a wide range of performance. The 256GB 760p performs very well at low queue depths and lands only a few hundred megabytes per second behind the Samsung 960 EVO. The 128GB 760p outperforms the 128GB SBX at low queue depths, but it doesn't scale as well as we intensify the load.

Sequential Write Performance

The sequential write test divides this group of products into premium, mainstream, and value classes. The 256GB 760p is disappointing in this test. Its sequential write performance is nearly identical to the Drevo Ares. The 256GB MyDigitalSSD SBX has a PCIe 3.0 x2 interface yet delivers the same level of performance.

The 128GB SBX is actually faster than the 128GB 760p in the sequential write test. The SBX features a larger SLC cache than the 760p. That allows it to absorb more incoming write data before it drops to native TLC speeds.

Sequential Sustained Write Performance

The 760p's SLC cache is very small for a modern NVMe SSD. Once you write enough data to fill the cache, sequential write speed drops to 270 MB/s for the 256GB drive and 136 MB/s for the 128GB. Intel did not adopt direct-to-die write technology for the 760p, so all incoming data must pass through the SLC layer and then fold into the TLC. This slows down data transfers to the drive, but it also reduces wear on the flash.

Random Read Performance

All of the products surpass 10,000 random read IOPS at QD1. There is very little separation between the drives, but it's worth noting that the 760p SSDs deliver the highest performance at QD1. The other products have caught up to the Intel drives at QD2, but no product stands out from the rest. We see larger gaps at higher queue depths, but it's too little, too late. That type of load is far beyond what you will see with consumer applications.

Random Write Performance

Advanced SLC cache technology has largely moved random write performance beyond what applications can use. The smaller blocks easily fit in the SLC cache and it takes more transactions to fill the cache, unlike sequential data that has larger blocks. To put it simply, even a very small SLC cache is large enough to handle your bursty random writes many times over.

70% Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

The 760p's small SLC cache capacity causes inconsistent performance in our mixed workload test.

70% Mixed Random Workload

Here we see the performance increase predictably as we scale up the queue depth.

Sequential Steady-State

The Toshiba RD400 and MyDigitalSSD BPX are the only products in our test with 2-bit per cell (MLC) flash. Toshiba brands the RD series as a workstation product and we can trace its lineage back to array-on-card products that had a low-cost RAID controller linked to eight onboard SSDs. The BPX is a mainstream SSD that came to market with the last remaining Toshiba 15nm planar MLC flash. Phison purchased and stockpiled that flash specifically for the NAND shortage. The two MLC drives show us the difference between a purpose-built workstation-class NVMe SSD and one built for typical consumer use.

It's important to make that distinction because Intel has matched the MyDigitalSSD BPX's steady-state performance with its new 64-layer TLC. Intel designed the 760p for consumer workloads, and not workstation use. You could stretch its heavy workload performance by overprovisioning the drive, but you will still not get RD400-level performance.

Random Steady-State

For many years, Intel preached the benefits of performance consistency as it led the SSD industry with enterprise SSDs that crossed over to the consumer market. We hear less about performance consistency from Intel now that it makes true consumer SSDs, but that doesn't detract from the importance of consistent performance. The random steady-state test shows us worst-case random write performance with a single drive. This helps us to determine if a product should be used in a RAID array. Performance peaks and valleys increase in magnitude as you add drives to an array.

The 250GB 760p is not as consistent as the 250GB Samsung 960 EVO, and the blame falls on its caching algorithm. You can see the data folding into the TLC in waves. The transfer rate is high for a brief moment as data writes to the SLC then performance crashes as the SLC flushes. This process repeats for the entire duration of an extended write workload. It's not an ideal algorithm for RAID in a workstation, but the performance is good enough for gaming systems where you simply want a single large volume with satisfactory performance.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

It isn't surprising to see the two MLC SSDs at the top of several of the applications tests. The RD400 and BPX are no longer in production, but there is still stock available online for purchase. It won't be long before the stock clears, leaving us with only TLC products to chose from. The Intel 760p and Samsung 860 EVO dominate the other TLC products in these charts.

Application Storage Bandwidth

These results show us the hierarchy with more clarity. The MLC drives tower over the TLC products, but the 850 EVO and 760p are on a different performance level than the other 256GB-class NVMe SSDs.

The performance gap shrinks between the 128GB drives. This capacity point is more about pricing than performance, but it's nice to see the NVMe SSDs can still deliver superior application performance compared to modern mainstream SATA SSDs.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The workload you run on a drive plays a role in its performance in the future. Modern SSDs will use idle time to clean dirty flash cells. That speeds up incoming write traffic, but the companies all use different algorithms for background activities. Some drives will clean up as soon as the drive moves into an idle state, while others will let the tasks build up and then tackle a larger job. This can impact power consumption and performance at any given time. You are most susceptible to heavy workload strain after installing the operating system or new applications.

Total Service Time

Throughput should not be your primary concern after running a heavy workload. Service time is the disk busy time plus the access time. This test shows latency over the entire range of applications in the PCMark 8 suite. We focus on the recovery results of the tests.

The 256GB 600p surprisingly performs better than new 760p. The 600p uses Intel's first-generation 32-layer flash that is plagued with high latency. The 600p also has a less-than-stellar controller. The new 760p should outperform the 600p in every test, but that isn't the case with the 256GB drives.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time test measures how long the drives took to complete the workloads. The longer the drives are active, the less time they spend in a low-power idle state or performing background cleanup operations. That has an impact on responsiveness and power consumption.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE Responsiveness Test

The responsiveness test is a direct latency measurement, but the results filter into a scoring system based on an 850 EVO-like Samsung SATA SSD. The baseline system delivers a score of 1000. Most of the NVMe SSDs, except the SBX models, beat that bar. Both Intel SSD 760p SSDs outperform the Samsung 960 EVO 250GB in this important test. The two Samsung professional series products with MLC are more responsive than the 760p, but they also cost significantly more.

BAPCo MobileMark 2012.5 Notebook Battery Life

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The high disk busy time measurement from earlier helps us understand why the 256GB Intel 760p falls short of the 600p result in the notebook battery life test. The 256GB 760p performed better than products using the Phison PS5007-E7 controller, but we expected more from an Intel NVMe SSD.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

2017 would have been much different if Intel’s first-generation 32-layer flash had performed as well as its new second-gen 64-layer. For most of the year, Samsung dominated with third-gen V-NAND and Toshiba still shipped 15nm planar flash. Both types of flash produced a better user experience than IMFT's 32-layer MLC/TLC. Now things are looking up for Intel as it plows into 2018 armed with a very competitive NVMe SSD powered by improved flash.

Earlier this month, Intel and Micron announced plans to end their joint NAND development after a twelve-year partnership. The two companies will finish developing the third-gen 3D NAND technology together but then take separate paths. It’s difficult to say what sent the NAND partnership over the edge, but many analysts had predicted the breakup. The venture isn't entirely dissolved, though. Intel and Micron will continue to develop 3D XPoint together even though Intel is still the only company with products using the high-speed memory.

A recent leak may explain why the 760p, which is a replacement for the 600p, jumps into the 7-series tier. The leaked information claims that QLC NAND, which holds four bits per cell, will power a new 660p model that should debut before the end of the year. Those new SSDs might have spurred Intel to put more distance between the new entry-level QLC drive and the TLC-based 760p.

It’s still early in the year, but other companies are already reacting to IMFT’s high-speed 64-layer TLC. Just hours ago, Samsung released the new SATA 860 Pro and EVO models that contend with Intel’s 545s and Crucial’s award-winning MX500. Samsung decided to stick with its price premium for the EVO series, so it can't match the Crucial MX500's price point. Now Samsung's new NVMe 900 series, due for a makeover in April, will have to contend with the Intel 760p.

The 760p is the best overall SSD value on the market, but that only applies if your system supports the NVMe protocol and you don’t need workstation-class endurance. The 760p could benefit from optimizations for application performance, but firmware updates can add some pep there. Notebook users should take notice of our MobileMark results—the 760p delivered an excellent mix of performance and battery life.

2018 will mark the end of the flash shortage and the return of competition to the consumer SSD market. Plentiful flash means plentiful competition. We expect Crucial to jump into the NVMe space for the first time, but Adata will enter the fray with a similar hardware configuration first. HP will also release a similar product. SMI is poised to capitalize with its SM2262, which may become the next SandForce SF-2281-esque controller that entices more companies into the SSD market.

The Intel SSD 760p looks like an excellent value at $79, $119, and $199, but you'll need to monitor how fast consumer SSD prices fall throughout the year. At this point, there is very little reason to shop for a SATA SSD unless your other components limit your upgrade path.

Like the 600p, the new 760p doesn’t come to market with a 1TB option. Intel will ship the 1TB- and 2TB-class models later this quarter. The high-capacity drives are a better fit for most of our readers, but pricing may leave some teetering between a low-cost 1TB SSD or a high-performance 1TB 760p. Intel will win that battle every time if it can keep pricing closer to $350 than $400. We shouldn’t have to wait long to see how the story unfolds.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Features & Specifications

MyDigitalSSD stands out from the rest when it comes to SSDs based on Phison Technologies' controllers. MyDigitalSSD is known for its disruptive products and has had a string of successes, but now it's ready to shake things up again with a new entry-level SSD.

Most people don't know MyDigital's history, but it's a feel-good story that resonates with people that cheer for the underdog. The CEO Matt Dawson began his quest with a simple problem–he wanted to reduce the amount of time it took to transfer photographs from his storage media. He began by researching products in forums and chat groups. Not satisfied with domestic storage products, he learned more about the inner workings and how to increase performance. In early 1999, Dawson found his solution and partnered with a company in Taiwan. To get started, Dawson sold his car and nearly everything else he had. He even borrowed money from friends and family to build inventory. Finally, he opened a web store and brought new specialty flash-based products to the American market.

The Compact Flash cards from MyDigitalDiscount were several times faster than the off-the-shelf products sold in big box stores. The products became popular as word spread and professionals took notice.

By 2006, MyDigitalDiscount had experience and employees. Put off by soaring prices, low performance, and weak availability, the company again looked East to find emerging technology that could outperform hard disk drives. At the time, SSDs were available, but good SSDs were rare. The company saw an opportunity to work with controller design houses and manufacturing companies to make its first house brand SSD under the MyDigitalSSD name.

High capacity flash storage was new for many of us, but Dawson was a seasoned industry vet. He helped companies bring products to market, recommended changes to decrease manufacturing and development costs, and still ran a successful store based in upstate New York while traveling back to Asia every few weeks.

Over time, the house brand grew beyond the limits of the house. Now MyDigitalSSD products sell at other online and retail stores worldwide. The brand hasn't risen to the same level as Intel, Corsair, or many of the others we often see on these pages, but that's also by design. The company doesn't invest a lot of resources in marketing, which helps it maintain its low pricing. Over the last few years, we've routinely seen the MyDigitalSSD BPX sell for 1/3 the price as similar SSDs from Corsair, Patriot, and others. Staying lean allows the company to build and maintain personal relationships with its customers, and the low prices keep them coming back. 

Specifications

MyDigitalSSD plans to bring the SBX to market in four capacities. The drives range from 128GB to 1TB (1024GB) and use Toshiba's 64-layer BiCS 3D NAND. The MyDigitalSSD lineup is evolving as the market moves deeper into 3D NAND. The Phison E8 SSD controller will power the company's entry-level and mainstream products until the E8T DRAMless variant comes to market. The Phison E7 controller powers the previous-generation BPX models. That controller doesn't support 3D NAND, so the popular BPX will eventually reach end of life status.

Essentially, SBX SSDs are the carrot to move away from SATA SSDs for new system builds. They also serve as upgrades for three-year-old computers that support the NVMe protocol.

The drive offers 240,000/180,000 random read/write IOPS, which is nearly as fast as the BPX with MLC NAND. It also delivers up to 1,600/1,300 MB/s of sequential read/write throughput. In contrast to many other current NVMe SSDs, the SBX has a PCIe 3.0 x2 interface instead of x4. Most Z97 motherboards only dedicate two lanes to the onboard M.2 port, so the SBX is a good fit for older systems. The drive also works with newer motherboards that support PCIe 3.0 x4 M.2 connections.

A two-lane controller is easier to design, which reduces research and development costs. The goal is to pass the savings on to the customer. The x2 interface does reduce burst performance in some situations, but it also has benefits. Two active lanes should consume less power than four lanes. Phison has struggled with power consumption in NVMe designs, though, particularly with the E7 controller. The company has yet to program in all of the power states that reduce power consumption at idle. The E8 controller in the SBX could be one of the best NVMe SSDs for notebook use if Phison programmed it to take advantage of all the low power states. It will take an effort to get it there, but I'm not sure if Phison will put in the work to make it happen.

Features

The MyDigitalSSD SBX does bring several useful features with it. We covered the new Phison PS5008-E8 (E8) controller in detail in our technical preview editorial.

• 3D TLC NAND Flash
• NVM Express 1.2 Interface
• PCI Express Gen 3 x2
• M.2 Form Factor
• Single Sided: 80 x 22 x 2mm
• Thermal Throttling
• End-to-End Data Path Protection
• Built-in Static & Dynamic Wear Leveling
• Bad Block Management
• StrongECC (SECC)
• SmartECC & SmartECC Refresh Support
• Power Saving Modes Supported: APST, ASPM, & L1.2
• Power Loss Protection with GuaranteedFlush
• Secure Erase
• SMART & TRIM Support
• Windows, OSX, & Linux Support
• Five-year Limited Warranty

StrongECC is a new trademark name for Phison's improved BCH error correction and control technology. We're told the technology is just as effective as LDPC (Low-Density Parity Check) technology.

Pricing, Warranty & Endurance

The 128GB SBX retails for $62.99 on Amazon. Savvy shoppers can head over to MyDigitalDiscount for an 11% price reduction. The 256GB sells for $99.99, and the 512GB model goes for $184.99. The 1TB model retails for $339.99.

All SBX SSDs carry a five-year warranty that's limited by the amount of data you write to the drive. Unlike Intel's 600p and some other drives, the MyDigitalSSD SBX will not go into a read-only mode after reaching the endurance limit. Also, the endurance specification is conservative. As an example, Phison's internal testing shows the 512GB model can withstand up to 439 TBW with the JEDEC consumer test.

Packaging

MyDigitalSSD uses the same style of packaging for the SBX that it used for the BPX. The drive ships in a retail-ready blister pack. You get the drive, a small screwdriver, and a fine-threaded screw that uses a universal pitch for M.2 motherboards and notebooks.

A Close Look

MyDigitalSSD uses the M.2 2280 single-sided design for all four capacities. The components are all on one side of the PCB, so you won't have to worry about notebook compatibility. In the past, some notebook manufacturers placed other chips under the M.2 slot to save space, which didn't leave enough room for a double-sided SSD. This was a rare issue for notebooks in general, but the models that could only accept a single-sided SSD were popular.

The Phison E8 controller is physically smaller than the E7 it replaces. The DRAM package is so close to the controller that the two are nearly touching. On the other side, we found four NAND packages with one assigned to each channel on the controller.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

1TB Benchmark Results

Comparison Products

We mixed a popular high-performance NVMe SSD with mainstream and entry-level products for these tests. In the coming months, every drive in these tests will be discontinued by the manufacturer and replaced with new 64-layer TLC-based models. You will still be able to buy the drives, but the companies will stop manufacturing them. We suspect it will take many months for the channel to sell off the overstock, but some products will sell out faster than others.

There are fewer 1TB-class NVMe products than the other capacities because the NAND shortage hit high-capacity NAND packages the hardest. M.2 SSDs have less surface area to mount the packages, which makes high-density packages a must. We recently reviewed a 1TB SATA SSD review that had sixteen NAND packages with two die per package. The net result was very good performance, but it's impossible to spread the die out like that on a small 22mm by 80mm form factor M.2 SSD. 

MyDigitalSSD will release a high-performance NVMe SSD using the Phison E12 controller later this year.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

The MyDigitalSSD SBX has better low queue depth (QD) sequential performance than the Intel 600p. The 600p takes a slight lead above QD4, but outside of burst activity, that is higher than a normal desktop workload.

Sequential Write Performance

The SBX outperforms the 600p in sequential writes across the entire QD range. There is more to the story than just the performance, though. We found it difficult to push the SBX into thermal throttling. The 600p, as well as many other products using the SM2260 controller, can suffer from performance loss due to excessive heat generation during heavy use.

Random Read Performance

Random read performance is the most important differentiator between the entry-level NVMe SSDs. The SBX breaks into the 10,000 IOPS range that separates good products from the less desirable ones. The Intel 600p was a favorite, but only for its price. The SBX offers increased performance in areas that directly impact the user experience, but it comes at a similar price point.

Random Write Performance

Some products deliver outstanding random write results, but with low-cost models, we're just looking to match or exceed SATA drives. Most modern SSDs provide more random write performance than you can actually use. It's all about latency, but the operating system and other factors present bottlenecks that prevent improvements.

70% Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

The SBX uses Toshiba's new 64-layer TLC flash. That's the same flash in the XG5 NVMe SSD that performed so well in our mixed sequential test. The SBX trails only the XG5 in this test. It's odd to find a true entry-level product nearly leading a significant performance category, but the SBX is right up there thanks to BiCS flash. 

70% Mixed Random Workload

The Phison PS5008-E8 controller suffers from low write performance, and that drags down the mixed random results even though only 30% of the workload consists of write data. We often dismiss random write performance, but it does have an impact in other areas that are important during heavy multitasking.

Sequential Steady-State

We expect workstation-class performance from SSDs using the NVMe protocol over the high-speed PCIe bus. Planar TLC NAND and Micron's first-generation 3D TLC ended those expectations. The new 64-layer TLC from all the fabs offers increased performance, but the controller still has to operate efficiently under severe conditions. Paying more for an NVMe SSD now, and into the foreseeable future, means getting more processor cores that help sustain high performance during demanding background activities. The dual-core SBX controller is on the low side of the processing power curve, so its sustained write performance in steady-state conditions is lower than some previous-generation products.

Random Steady-State

The SBX delivers consistent performance thanks to the new flash. The random steady-state test highlights the unwavering performance. The drive even delivers better performance under these conditions than the best SATA products on the market.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

Across the board, the SBX outperforms the Intel 600p in real-world applications.

Application Storage Bandwidth

The average throughput score gives us a better look at the NVMe SSD performance hierarchy with a broad range of applications. The SBX is faster than the 600p under very light workloads, but it trails the rest of the test pool.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

Like all SSDs, the SBX suffers degraded performance after very heavy use. Unfortunately, the dual-core processor needs more time to recover after a sustained heavy workload. The MyDigitalSSD SBX doesn't fully recover with five minutes of idle time between each pass in the recovery stage. 

Total Service Time

The 600p has a slightly better service time during recovery, but the SBX regains its composure after the drives settle.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time test measures how long the drives work to complete each series of tasks. This data gives us an early look at power consumption when a drive is fully active and not in a reduced power state. This test also shows us how efficient the drive is at running basic desktop workloads. The MyDigitalSSD SBX takes more time than most of the drives, but the Intel 600p is much worse.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE Responsiveness Test

The user experience with the 600p and the SBX is nearly identical. The SYSmark 2014 SE Responsiveness Test uses web browsing and typical office applications to generate a score based on latency, completion time, and power use. The SBX's PCIe 3.0 x2 interfere gives it a big power advantage at the system level.

BAPCo MobileMark 2012.5 Notebook Battery Life

SSD power consumption is a complicated issue. Some reviews measure power during the basic four-corner tests, while others present consumption at idle or in one of the many sleep states. SSDs generally consume the most power during background actives while the controller frantically shuffles data, rereads blocks to refresh the cells, or transfers data from the SLC cache to the long-term TLC storage.

While a notebook is on battery power, the CPU, system memory, and interfaces all run in a reduced power state. With default power settings, the SSD is not as fast or as responsive under these conditions. The MyDigitalSSD SBX delivers the same battery time as the Intel 600p.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

512GB Benchmark Results

Comparison Products

There are more 512GB-class NVMe SSDs on the market than 1TB (and larger) drives. Many of these products came to market during the NAND shortage. The shortage increased prices, and in some cases, NVMe products cost $1 per gigabyte. Consumers simply don't purchase $1,000 SSDs, even if they ship in an Intel box. High capacity NAND packages were diverted to the enterprise market where companies can charge an even larger premium. That left end users like us with 512GB M.2 drives that cost more than SATA SSDs despite the obvious cost advantages from the reduced cost of components, like the aluminum case that M.2 products don't use.

In this capacity class, we finally get to see the MyDigitalSSD SBX against the BPX, which was the best value SSD in 2017. The Intel 600p, Samsung PM961, Adata S10 GAMMIX, Corsair Neutron MX500, Plextor M8Pe, and Toshiba RD400 appear in this group. These models have earned various levels of success throughout the year based on sale pricing and availability.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

The MyDigitalSSD SBX has to look even better to stand out in this congested capacity class. The drive reaches its peak 1,600 MB/s at QD4 and delivers ~600 MB/s at QD1. The drive outperforms the Intel 600p and Adata GAMMIX at every queue depth we tested.

Sequential Write Performance

The SBX delivers between 900 and 1,000 MB/s of throughput across the queue depth range with a single worker generating the workload. This is much higher than the Intel 600p, but just a little better than the Adata drive.

Random Read Performance

We use the 10,000 random read IOPS mark as the dividing line between good and poor performance. The user experience in Windows is closely tied to the QD1 results. MyDigitalSSD reached the mark but didn't hit it out of the park. We've tested drives that achieve nearly 16,000 IOPS at QD1, so there is still a large divide between the best performance and "acceptable."

Random Write Performance

The Intel 600p enjoys a big random write performance advantage over the SBX at low queue depths. This shouldn't be a big concern because the applications and the operating system tend to hold back performance in these types of applications.

70% Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

BiCS flash has exceptional performance in mixed workloads, so the SBX accelerates past many of the other products. Most data transfers to and from external drives, high-performance NAS, or other storage devices, consists of large sequential file transfers. The SBX should excel in that type of workload.

70% Mixed Random Workload

The low random write performance slows the SBX during mixed random workloads at low queue depths.

Sequential Steady-State

The SBX, like most modern value SSDs, isn't satisfactory for heavy workstation-class workloads. Intel's Optane 900P came to market at just the right time. SSD vendors will need a generation or two with 3D TLC to master developing high-performance drives that still achieve exceptional results during heavy sustained workloads.

Random Steady-State

Compared to the larger 1TB model, the 512GB SBX loses close to half of its steady-state random write performance. The SBX SSDs don't use over-provisioning to improve steady-state performance. Instead, the design trades off some performance for more usable capacity. We recommend that you format the drives with some spare area or avoid filling the drives to extreme levels.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

The MLC-powered BPX takes the top of the chart while the SBX hovers near the bottom. The SBX is still faster than the Intel 600p with common desktop applications.

Application Storage Bandwidth

The 512GB SBX scores nearly 400 MB/s of throughput in our test. That's nearly 30 MB/s less than the 1TB SBX.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The 512GB SBX's reduced capacity impacts the amount of time the SSD needs to recover after a heavy workload. The SBX would benefit from overprovisioning, which would deliver a significant improvement in this test.

Total Service Time

The service time tests reveal that there are other factors beyond heavy background activity that lead to increased latency with the foreground workload. MyDigitalSSD and Phison will more than likely work on a firmware update to address the high latency we observed with this model.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time test shows us there is an issue with this capacity during heavy workloads.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE Responsiveness Test

The 512GB SBX is as responsive as the 1TB model during typical consumer workloads. We observed a very slight reduction in power consumption with half of the NAND die. The 512GB model still uses the same number of NAND packages, so the reduced die count is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on power consumption.

BAPCo MobileMark 2012.5 Notebook Battery Life

Our Lenovo Y700-17 gaming system ran for 333 minutes on battery power. That's much better than we measured with the aging BPX series. Phison hasn't fully optimized the E8 controller for enhanced low power states, and the BPX's latest firmware update didn't come with the advanced power features.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

256GB And 128GB Benchmark Results

Comparison Products

We rarely test 128GB-class products due to their excessive cost per gigabyte, so we include them with the 256GB-class drives that always offer superior value. The SBX 128GB costs $62.99, but the 256GB is only $99.99 for twice the capacity.

We included the Drevo Ares, Patriot Hellfire M.2, Samsung 950 Pro, 960 EVO, and the Toshiba RD400. The 240GB MyDigitalSSD BPX with MLC flash, one of the best values of 2017, also makes an appearance.

The last production run of BPX drives overlapped with the new SBX drives so they will share the stage for the next few months.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

The larger 256GB SBX outperforms the smaller 128GB model in every performance test in this section. At QD2, the 256GB SBX delivers nearly 200 MB/s more sequential read throughput than the 128GB drive.

Sequential Write Performance

You'll see the largest gap between the two SBX drives during the write workloads. The 256GB SBX delivers nearly 800MB/s at QD2, but the 128GB drive falls short of 400 MB/s. We've tested SATA SSDs recently with higher performance than the 128GB SBX. The 128GB model uses four 256Gbit NAND die, so there is very little performance-boosting parallelization. 

Random Read Performance

The four die in the 128GB SBX still power it to slightly over 10,000 random read IOPS at QD1. The 256GB SBX achieves a nearly identical result, but it scales better as we increase the workload. That comes courtesy of twice as many NAND die.

Random Write Performance

The 256GB SBX spreads the workload across the higher die count, which also gives it an advantage during this stressful write workload. By QD4, the 256GB SBX provides nearly twice the performance of the smaller model.

70% Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

Companies often list the same performance specifications for all the SSDs in a family even though they come at different capacity points. In the four corner tests, we even see similar results on occasion. Larger drives almost always perform better during mixed workloads that issue read and write commands to the target at the same time. NVMe, unlike SATA, allows us to read and write simultaneously, so performance is usually much higher than products that communicate over the legacy SATA bus. Even the 128GB SBX can outstrip SATA SSDs.

70% Mixed Random Workload

Being able to read and write data at the same time gives NVMe SSDs a big advantage over SATA SSDs. Entry-level NVMe products have closed the pricing gap with SATA SSDs of equal capacity. Although there are some exceptions, when it comes to choosing a new drive for a system build, it's almost always safer to choose an NVMe SSD over SATA. The mixed workload user experience feels quicker if you tune the system to keep the drive in a high-performance state. That tuning eliminates the latency associated with resumption from sleep states.

Sequential Steady-State

This test is used for more advanced SSDs with more processor cores and focuses on sustained workloads instead of just burst performance.

Random Steady-State

The two smaller SBX NVMe SSDs no longer provide us with a consistent line across the chart. The 128GB and 256GB models have trouble keeping the IOs at a constant rate. The 950 Pro is the only product in the chart that manages to keep it together. That's because the drive uses older 3D V-NAND, so it has more die to spread around the workload. The 500MHz tri-core ARM-based processor also helps with sustained workloads.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

The two MyDigitalSSD SBX drives perform as expected in the real-world applications tests. The real story is the difference between the SBX and the older BPX, which uses the PCIe 3.0 x4 bus and Toshiba 15nm MLC planar NAND. The 240GB BPX is still the clear value leader in this capacity class.

Application Storage Bandwidth

MyDigitalSSD will have a tough time selling low-capacity SBX drives while the BPX SSDs are still available. After our test of the Toshiba XG5 with 64-layer BiCS flash, we thought the SBX might perform more like the BPX in consumer applications. Instead, the SBX falls well short of the high marks set by the previous generation low-cost drive from MyDigitalSSD.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

We experienced the same recovery issues with the smaller SBX drives that we observed with the two higher-capacity models. We're fairly confident MyDigitalSSD and Phison can address these issues with a firmware update. This is an extreme test compared to typical desktop PC workloads. It's often the type of workload that the SSD vendor tunes for at the tail end of firmware optimization.

Total Service Time

Just like the two larger drives we compared earlier in the review, the smaller drives have two different performance profiles. We expected slightly lower results with the 128GB SBX than the 256GB model, but the delta is massive.

Disk Busy Time

The Disk Busy Time test almost mimics the service time test. We focus on the recovery section of the test. The SBX drives work longer than the other drives to complete the same tasks.

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE Responsiveness Test

The SBX's responsiveness is lower than the other 256GB-class products. We observed better performance than low-cost SATA SSDs, but the SBX drives can't match the premium drives.

BAPCo MobileMark 2012.5 Notebook Battery Life

The 128GB and 256GB SBX drives both lasted 350 minutes in our notebook battery life test. That beats the two higher-capacity models. We're using a gaming-focused Lenovo Y700-17 notebook, but the business-focused Lenovo Carbon series would provide much more battery life. The Y700-17 is the first platform that allowed us to standardize on a system that supports both NVMe and SATA.

The SBX's PCIe 3.0 x2 interface allows the SSD to use less power than the products that use all four PCIe lanes. The SBX 256GB is one of the best NVMe choices for notebook use. You get good battery life, but you also retain a lot of performance while you're on battery power. It's rare to see a drive at the top of both charts.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

The main focus areas for an entry-level SSD are reliability, broad compatibility, and a low price point. In the case of the MyDigitalSSD BPX, we found an entry-level model that could outperform just about every NVMe SSD on the market that doesn't come with a Samsung Pro label.

The SBX is coming to market at the leading edge of a tidal wave. MLC is washing back to sea as TLC becomes the dominant memory, but a handful of aging (but still very good) MLC SSDs are still sprinkled throughout Amazon and Newegg. The SBX in its current form will not be as successful in a market filled with holdout MLC drives. The BPX is one of the best on a weighted value scale, but the Plextor M8Pe follows close behind. You may even find a Samsung 950 Pro lingering around, but it is much more expensive. The SBX's market position will change in time, though. It will certainly look much better after the MLC-based products sell out.

Six months from now every new SSD on Amazon and Newegg will have 3D TLC flash and prices will drop as NAND supply increases. Many of the first-gen 64-layer products will try to match the performance of 2017 models, but not all of them will succeed. The SBX is not as fast as the BPX. It doesn't give us a feeling of being a great value after we factor in pricing, either.

Riding the early tide to market will hurt the SBX. Prices are dropping and some companies have already released models that set the tone for 2018 (see the Crucial MX500 Review for reference). Toshiba's BiCS doesn't have the same density as Micron's new 64-layer, but Toshiba is already shipping the flash out to third-parties like MyDigitalSSD. That's something we've yet to see with Micron's 64-layer. Unfortunately, the third-party vendors are paying a lot more for the Toshiba flash.

Many analysts have stated the NAND shortage is over, but we're likely just sitting in a bubble. Toshiba holds the key to reducing consumer SSD prices for the products we shop for. The next-generation Samsung NVMe SSD costs the same as the existing models, and the BiCS high-performance drives like the upcoming RD500 and Phison E12-based products will fall in the same 960 EVO/Pro price range.

It's a lot to consider if you're trying to predict if the MyDigitalSSD SBX will be a product to purchase over the next few months. We don't think it is in the short term because there are better options available for just a few dollars more. We will have to revisit this question in three months to see how quickly MLC products sell out.

The 1TB SBX should sell for a slight premium over a good SATA SSD like the 1TB 850 EVO. We went a year with very few low-cost NVMe options in this capacity, but the BPX never scaled to 1TB. Now you can stay under $500 without being forced to choose between a 1TB Intel 600p or a 512GB-class drive with higher performance.

The SBX 256GB performs well and delivers very good notebook battery life. It is a rare combination for any SSD to dominate both the performance and battery tests. Notebooks outsell desktops, and the ratio is increasing, so this is a real advantage for the SBX series.

Of the four drives we tested, the 128GB is the only one I would not recommend for casual computing. There is a $35 price gap between the 128GB and the 256GB models. Even if you do not need the extra capacity, the extra performance is worth spending more.

Regardless of the capacity, SATA should no longer be a consideration unless your system limits your options. The premium for the low-latency NVMe protocol has shrunk to non-existent levels. Consumer SSDs like the MyDigitalSSD SBX, Intel 600p, and the new Intel 760p are the ground floor for the technology and offer superior performance over equally-priced SATA models. You may not need to upgrade to NVMe today, but your next SSD should use the technology.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Features & Specifications

We've tested several very fast external drives this year, but none are as fast as Netstor’s NA611TB3. This product is slightly different, though, because it doesn't actually come with storage media. For roughly $300 you get a Thunderbolt 3 enclosure that you can arm with two high-performance NVMe SSDs that will rip through any workload.

"Small yet stunningly fast" is Netstor's tagline for the NA611TB3. On the surface, the product is an external drive enclosure with a name only a mother could love. In practice, the enclosure is the fastest external storage product we've ever tested. You can have one, too, but there are a few serious drawbacks. You have to piece the storage together, which adds to the price tag. This is one device that is truly only as fast as you can afford to make it.

Netstor designed the device to take full advantage of the performance potential of the Thunderbolt 3 interface. The Thunderbolt 40Gbps specification is misleading and often misunderstood. The bridge chip connects to your PCI Express bus with four PCIe lanes at 32Gbps, which is the same bandwidth available to an M.2 socket. The extra 8Gbps of throughput comes from the video signal that flows from a different feed, which is usually a video card.

The enclosure features two PCI Express x2 lanes per SSD to help maximize bandwidth. The dual ports also allow for two separate volumes or a RAID array, which you build with the operating system's software tools. Enthusiasts may gravitate towards RAID 0, but Netstor designed this enclosure for serious professional users that might prefer the redundancy of RAID 1 or two separate volumes.

As we've seen countless times in our SSD reviews, mixed workloads can reduce overall storage performance by as much as 95%. To avoid the performance penalty associated with mixed workloads, many professionals will read data from one storage device and write the final product back to another. For many of us, SATA has been the dominant storage interface for several years, but it is only a half-duplex interface. That means it can only read or write data serially–it can't do both at once. The NVMe interface is full-duplex, but affordable NVMe SSDs still face challenges from the reduced number of NAND die and the limited number of controller channels. Using two devices for dedicated tasks sidesteps those problems.

Specifications

*40Gbps Interface Speed (32Gbps Data)

The Netstor NA611TB3 is surprisingly simple, which is just the way we like it. The enclosure has an external Thunderbolt 3 connection. Inside the enclosure, there are two M.2 M-Key slots with a PCIe 3.0 x2 connection assigned to each. It would have been possible to use a single PCIe 3.0 x4 connection to a single storage device, but a single SSD cannot take full advantage of the interface at low queue depths. By splitting the available bandwidth between two devices, users can push more data through the system at more realistic queue depths.

We aren't real fond of the external power brick. The Thunderbolt 3 specification allows some devices to push up to 100 watts (20A at 5V). In a perfect world, every host system would follow the specification. In reality, several other specifications make Thunderbolt 3, and the cables used, an alphabet soup of standards. Many implementations would not provide enough power for two high-performance NVMe SSDs, so Netstor built the system with an external power brick to overcome the confusion.

Features

• 40 Gbps transfer speeds via Thunderbolt 3
• Pocket-sized storage capable of 4K video editing
• Two M.2 sockets
• Variable speed fan
• Up to 3x faster than USB 3.1 Gen2
• Capable of daisy chaining up to 5 devices

Pricing & Warranty

We only found the Netstor Thunderbolt 3 NA611TB3 at one US retailer. MyPCCase.com lists the MSRP at $360, but the drive is on sale for $339. You still have to add at least one M.2 SSD designed for PCI Express. Most PCIe SSDs are NVMe, but some older AHCI-based products are floating around, like the early Samsung SM951. The enclosure comes with a two-year manufacturer warranty.

Accessories & Software

We found an assortment of accessories inside the box. The Thunderbolt 3 cable is the most important. Not all Thunderbolt devices come with a cable, so this was a nice addition. Early Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2 cables were expensive, but the new specification utilizes commodity USB-C connectors and allows for shorter cables that are passive.

Netstor also includes the power brick. It uses a standard PC power connector, which makes it easy to move from one host system to another.

Packaging

Netstor has an image of the enclosure on the front of the package. We found a breakdown of the specifications on the rear of the package.

A Closer Look

The system has a retro-looking chrome-style button and three status LEDs on the front. There are vents on the upper and lower edges of the front panel. The rubber non-skid cover overlaps the panel slightly.

The connections are on the back. Two Thunderbolt 3 connections allow the enclosure to fit in the middle of a chain of devices. A small switch adjusts the fan speed. We found the low setting to be completely silent, and the high-speed option is not noticeable from just a few feet away. The pitch of the fan is not a high frequency whine like you might expect from such as a small fan.

Internals

Netstor doesn't currently offer a loaded drive. You will have to remove the two screws on the back panel and dive in with some manual labor. Ideally, these would be the only screws that provide access to the M.2 slots, but that's not the case. There's also a large aluminum shield that you need to remove to install the drives. This is actually a good thing because the plate doubles as large heatsink that pulls heat from the drives. With this much surface area, it would be very difficult to push the drives into a thermal throttle condition.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Benchmarks & Conclusion

Comparison Products

We've tested a number of very fast external storage drives over the last year. The MyDigitalSSD BOOST and SanDisk Extreme 900 battled it out for the fastest USB 3.1 Gen 2 storage, but they can't compete with the Netstor NA611TB3 loaded with a Samsung 960 Pro 1TB NVMe SSD, much less two in RAID 0.

We brought along some other high-speed flash drives for this review. The 2TB Samsung Portable SSD T5 is the successor to the 2TB T3, but we included both in this review. The 512GB Adata SD700 is a previous award winner thanks to its excellent price and solid features.

The only hard disk drive in the review comes from LaCie. The Rugged RAID is the only portable disk-based solution we've tested that can compete with these flash drives. Its performance comes from a pair or HDDs running in RAID 0 that provide enough grunt to run sequential workloads faster than you might think possible.

Block Size Testing

If you like a close fight, this review will get very boring, very quickly. The Netstor NA611TB3 is exceedingly quick. The drive outperforms every other external drive at every single block size, and it doesn't matter if we are reading or writing data. The NVMe protocol was developed to make this an unfair fight, and it works as advertised.

With smaller blocks, the Windows 10 RAID 0 array is a little slower than a single drive. The array picks up speed with larger blocks. The big numbers come with 64KB and 128KB blocks. Those just happen to be the block sizes that make up large audio and video files.

Full LBA Span Performance

The software we use can't address a Windows 10 RAID array, but we can still test the single-drive QD1 sequential read and write performance. This is the performance you can expect by simply reading or write a single video file to the drives. The LaCie hard disk drive is the only product that suffers performance degradation, but that's due to its patter-based design.

The flash drives are all very consistent, but only one rides so high in the charts that the other lines look like its shadow.

File Transfers

We don't run many application tests on external or portable storage products because the typical workload is sequential in nature. Most of us simply read and write large pieces of data for archiving or transferring data from one location to another.

We often see performance measured in throughput, but time-based results are easier to interpret because the sense of time is universal. We tested transfer performance with a Blu-ray ISO. For the Game test, we used rFactor to transfer data from the post-installation directory to the portable drives. The Directory Test is a 15.2GB block of data that contains a mix of images, software installations, ISO files, and multimedia.

All of that NVMe performance carries over to our real-world transfer tests. The NVMe interface is designed to streamline commands and reduce latency compared to the legacy SATA technology that the other products use. This is what innovation in storage is all about. There is a significant time difference between the Netstor single drive and the MyDigitalSSD BOOST, which is pretty speedy in its own right.

The cost may be significant, but the two-drive array with a pair of 1TB Samsung 960 Pro SSDs boosts the results even more. The array is like having a crystal ball that shows what's possible in the next generation, but there are no witches here. The Netstor can give you that performance today, but there is a high cost to pay for ultimate performance.

Conclusion

The Netstor NA611TB3 has a forgettable name, but its performance is legendary. This is the first product we've tested that takes advantage of NVMe over a high-speed Thunderbolt 3 connection, but we hope to see more of these devices in the future. The NA611TB3 is fun, and the performance is exciting, but the form factor isn't for everyone.

Technically, it's portable. We've seen bulkier products fall into this mobile class, even if we count the additional power brick. That still doesn't make it practical with the extra box that you have to drag around. The power box also requires another cord, and that adds to the overall bulk. This enclosure is better suited for home or office use than it is for traveling between the two.

Professional photographers and videographers will not give the size a second thought considering all the other gear they take into the field. You'll know if the size and additional parts are acceptable for you–we can't make that decision. At least the NA611TB3 doesn't require a Pelican case like the LaCie 12big.

The Netstor's performance is in a class of its own. The NA611TB3 stands alone with a crowd of pretenders that are far behind, similar to what we've seen with NVMe SSDs in desktops and notebooks. The difference is this system was designed for workloads that benefit more from NVMe.

The RAID features are controlled entirely by the operating system. Hardware RAID has all but disappeared. The enterprise market moved to "software-defined" everything, and that hurt performance. Enthusiasts still like hardware acceleration because good enough is for bean counters, not the pedal-to-the-metal crazies that spend obscene amounts of money to push the limits.

This product uses a unique electrical configuration that works well. On paper, and even during our preparation, we were worried about the PCI Express 3.0 x2 configuration. We came away pleasantly surprised with the final results.

You will pay more for this level of performance. The Netstor NA611TB3 will set you back $339.99, and you still have to buy two NVMe SSDs. NVMe SSDs start out slightly below $100, but you want MLC NAND for 4K video production, and lots of it. The 1TB Samsung 960 Pro drives we used cost more than $600 each. If you want maximum capacity, the 2TB models cost more than $1,300 apiece.

The 480GB MyDigtialSSD BPX is a good low-cost alternative at $219.99. MLC flash is on the endangered species list, so we expect its price to rise as TLC drives the market.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Features & Specifications

Drevo's SSDs are becoming more popular on Amazon. The company sells quite a few low-cost SSDs and keyboards, but it hasn't submitted products for reviewer scrutiny until recently. At the time of writing, the company lists six internal and two portable SSDs. With prices starting at just $38.99 for a 60GB internal SSD, there is a lot of excitement surrounding the company. The low-cost sub-$40 SSD even has over 200 positive user reviews.

The Drevo Ares is the company's first NVMe SSD, but it uses a familiar design that we've tested before with the Tigo G5 PCIe SSD from Hong Kong. There is one significant difference between the two products. Tigo sells the G5 PCIe SSD in several capacities that range from 256GB to 2TB, but the Drevo Ares only comes in 256GB.

We don't expect too much in the performance department from the Drevo Ares. The company built the drive around the SMI SM2260 dual-core controller paired with Intel/Micron Flash Technology (IMFT) 256Gbit 3D MLC NAND. For the most part, all the SM2260 controllers paired with any flavor of Micron's first-generation 3D NAND have been a disappointment. Micron, under the Ballistix brand, planned to release an M.2 2280 consumer product with the same components as the Ares, but the company canceled it two weeks before the official launch.

Intel's 600p NVMe SSD took the poor controller and NAND performance in stride. Intel simply positioned the 600p as the first entry-level NVMe SSD and sold them by the handful. The Drevo Ares sells for only a few dollars more than the 600p 256GB. The performance is nearly the same even though the Ares features 2-bit per cell (MLC) rather than 3-bit per cell (TLC) NAND flash. The extra $20 spent gains you a hefty endurance increase, a good looking heatsink, and a few blue LEDs to light up your computer case.

Specifications

Drevo currently only plans to release a 256GB Ares model, but it hasn't closed the door on other capacities. The company says it might develop other models if there is a market demand for larger entry-level NVMe drives.

The large heat sink prevents the drive from thermal throttling.  If you feel like slowing the drive down, Drevo mounted a 3-way selector switch that will do it for you. It allows you to select three different performance modes. We recommend keeping the drive on its highest setting and never looking back.

In high-performance mode, the Drevo Ares can deliver up to 1,400/600 MB/s of sequential read/write throughput. We found the sequential read number very conservative and would peg the specification closer to 1,900 MB/s. It's important to remember that many of these products now use the famous "up to" specification. Thanks to IMFT's first-generation 3D technology, we find the stipulation on products with MLC flash as well as TLC. The SM2260 has one of the oddest cache algorithms we've ever tested, which makes it difficult to actually write data at the performance specification. 

IMFT's first generation 3D NAND is already being replaced, and the change couldn't come soon enough. The 384Gbit TLC version brought us a handful of poor performing products that had to be sold at deep discount prices. Luckily for us, Drevo uses 256Gbit MLC 3D flash for the Ares. But don't get too excited yet. The first-generation IMFT 3D NAND delivered similar performance with SMI SM2260-powered SSDs. The Ares does benefit from the 3D MLC, but only in the endurance category. The Intel 600p has an endurance rating of just 144TB, but the Ares with MLC boosts the spec up to 350 TBW.

The Ares only reaches 100,000 random read IOPS. That's the same as a high-performance SATA SSD like the Samsung 850 Pro. The cache system allows random data to write "up to" 150,000 IOPS for a split second until the SLC buffer fills with data.

The SM2260 doesn't feature direct-to-die write technology, which flushes data directly to the underlying TLC NAND after the SLC buffer fills with data. Instead, all the data written has to first pass through the high-speed SLC buffer and then to the low-speed TLC NAND as sequential data. This increases the NAND endurance, but it also slows data transfers. An extended sequential write test exposes inconsistent performance as the data passes through both stages of flash. That makes this controller a poor choice for high-performance applications with heavy write workloads.

The performance and low capacity are enough to dissuade many enthusiasts, but Drevo makes up for the shortcomings with a low price point.

Pricing, Warranty, Endurance And Accessories

Drevo sells the Ares on its own website for $219.99, but we prefer Amazon's $179.99 price for the 256GB drive. This is a Prime product, so members get free shipping.

Drevo backs the company's SSDs with a three-year warranty. We put a star next to the warranty above because the company also includes a 10-day no-questions-asked policy that includes a full refund that includes your shipping costs. This is the first time we've seen a company take the warranty to this level, but OCZ Technology came close before the Toshiba buyout.

There are a few items in the retail package. Drevo includes a half-height bracket for small form-factor and 2U rackmount systems. The company will also send you a free baseball cap if you take a picture with your drive and post the picture to Facebook. The final value-add incentive is a 15% coupon to use on Armyourdesk.com. The coupon is only good for your first order.

Packaging

Online shopping doesn't give you a sense of the Ares's premium feel. It's surprising given the cost of the company's solid-state drives. The company put some time into the package design and accessories. We wish more companies still put this much effort into their products.

A Closer Look

The Drevo Ares is a good-looking drive; it has all of the hallmarks of a high-performance SSD. The heat sink covers the full length of the card on both sides, and we see a PCI Express four-lane connector, large capacitors to provide host power failure protection, and even a few blue LEDs that light up the edge with a soft glow of color.

There is still the famous, or in this case infamous, three-way selector switch. You can use the switch to reduce the Devo Ares' power consumption, but it reduces the overall throughput and introduces more latency during random data reads and writes. I've yet to hear anyone say that their computer is so fast that they should introduce latency to reduce performance. We've yet to find a notebook that uses a half-height half-length PCIe add-in card, so power consumption shouldn't be an issue. For perspective, your SSD uses much less power than your video card or even your onboard sound chip.

The Tear Down

Dismantling the SSD proved to be easy enough. We found our way inside with little effort. The massive heatsink uses thermal pads to transfer heat from the core components. A thin film on the bottom heat sink does the same, but with less efficiency. The SMI SM2260 controller benefits the most from the cooling apparatus. That's the part that can run into heat issues, but you wouldn't know it because of the cache algorithm SMI uses on this model.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

256GB NVMe SSD Performance Testing

Comparison Products

The Drevo Ares 256GB falls into the low-cost NVMe arena with a price point very close to the Intel 600p, MyDigitalSSD BPX, and Patriot Hellfire M.2. This is a small but growing product segment. We expect explosive growth by early 2018 as Phison E8 and SMI SM2263 products come to market.

The 256GB NVMe class isn't a hot topic for enthusiasts. Most of us look for NVMe SSDs in 512GB or larger capacities. Samsung didn't even release a 256GB 960 Pro, but it did use the Polaris controller in the OEM SM961 SSD we tested last year. The Samsung 950 Pro, provided you can still find one, delivers the lowest latency in this capacity. The Intel 600p is readily available and is the least expensive NVMe SSD on the market. If price is your primary concern, the MyDigitalSSD BPX is widely considered the most well-rounded product in 256GB and 512GB capacities.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

Drevo says the Ares 256GB will deliver up to 1,400 MB/s of sequential read throughput, but we nearly hit 2,000 MB/s at a queue depth (QD) of 8. The drive features the same controller as the Intel 600p, and both suffer from low QD1 performance. The two drives deliver similar performance up to QD4, but the Ares jumps ahead of the Intel when we intensify the workload.

Sequential Write Performance

It's difficult to hit the rated 600 MB/s of sequential write speed. We do attain the hero number, but only for a brief time. Our test shows the average over an extended period of time, so the brief SLC cache boost only helps a little.

We have the same issue with the Intel 600p. Surprisingly, the Ares with 3D MLC flash comes up short of the Intel 600p and its slower 3D TLC NAND.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

This test writes 128KB sequential data across the entire usable LBA range. The Ares 256GB can actually write up to 680 MB/s, but the drop off to native TLC speed happens once you fill the drive to roughly 25%. Then performance drops to around 220 MB/s. This transition occurs because the SLC buffer shrinks according to how much data you store on the drive.

Random Read Performance

The Ares and 600p share nearly identical low-QD random read performance, but the Drevo's MLC flash scales better as we ramp up the workload. This is the one aspect that we don't like about the Drevo Ares. High-performance SATA SSDs deliver up to 10,000 random read IOPS at QD1. That's the mark we use to separate the best consumer SSDs from mainstream products, and we naturally expect NVMe SSDs to reach that benchmark.

Random Write Performance

Cache technology has made random write performance much less of a concern. Early SSDs had stuttering issues due to high random write latency. SSD vendors quickly learned how to correct the issues. Since then, random write performance has become a gloss-over specification for consumer use.

80% Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

Mixed random performance is a hot topic because your operating system rarely just reads or writes data serially. Instead, the operating system attempts to issue simultaneous read and write commands. The SATA interface doesn't allow you to read and write data at the same time, but the NVMe protocol does. That's one of the reasons why NVMe SSDs feel so much faster than SATA during real-world use.

The Drevo Ares 256GB slots in the middle of the group during our 80% mixed sequential workload. It delivers outstanding mixed workload performance compared to SATA.

80% Mixed Random Workload

The drive also performs well compared to the Intel 600p in mixed random workloads. With just a $20 difference in pricing, you should take a very close look at the Ares if you already have the 600p on your wish list.

Sequential Steady-State

Even though it clearly looks the part, Drevo didn’t design the Ares for steady-state workloads. The dual-core controller paired with 384Gbit TLC flash can't keep pace with the premium NVMe SSDs. However, the low-cost NVMe drives do run a little faster than most SATA SSDs in steady state, particularly in the key mixtures, such as 80% (desktop) and 70% (workstation).

Random Steady-State

The random steady-state test shows how the SM2260's cache system sacrifices consistency for high burst performance. A large rush of data will fill the SLC buffer, but then the SSD has to flush the buffered data to the TLC pool. That slows down the incoming data, again.

SLC caching works great as long as you don't need to transfer more data at one time than the SLC buffer can absorb. The Ares features a dynamic SLC buffer capacity. We aren't sure how much data can fit into the buffer because its capacity changes based on the amount of data stored on the drive.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

The Drevo Ares 256GB consistently outperforms the Intel 600p's service time, but it falls behind the other NVMe SSDs. The 600p and the Ares are the two least expensive drives in our lineup, so we don't mind the lower performance.

Application Storage Bandwidth

It's rare to see a product outperform another in the service time tests but then trail in the throughput results. Both the 600p and Ares provide similar performance, but there is a latency difference between the two. The Ares can finish the task faster than the 600p, but oddly enough, the 600p returns to an idle state quicker.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The recovery test doesn't look good for the Drevo Ares because it needs more time to recover than the test allows. The dual-core processor was never very good for background tasks to start with, but the 256Gbit 3D flash introduces another set of issues. These two factors can amplify latency during severe workloads.

Total Service Time

The service time results show the MLC-based Ares with the same high result as the two TLC-based products. The TLC-powered Intel 600p and Samsung 960 EVO recover within the five minute idle time during the recovery phases of the test, but the Ares doesn't fare as well. Drevo could address this issue with a firmware update.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time test shows us more of the same. The Ares was not built to tackle heavy workloads, and it doesn't handle adversity well.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

If you are the kind of person that wants to buy the best and not look back, the Drevo Ares 256GB isn't for you. The Ares has the look of a performance leader and considering its low price, that might be good enough for some enthusiasts. The Ares will certainly draw some attention if you use it in a windowed computer case.

Micron's first-generation 3D MLC flash was never widely used in consumer SSDs. The controller companies that validated the media didn't spend as much time optimizing the firmware as they did for the first-generation TLC NAND. We can see that in our performance results. The Intel 600p with IMFT 3D TLC delivers nearly the same performance as the 3D MLC. The Intel 600p and Drevo Ares deliver roughly the same performance under typical consumer workloads. Neither drive should be used in a workstation environment, but both also outperform most SATA SSDs.

The Ares has a big endurance advantage over the 600p. Intel rates the 600p 256GB at 144 TBW, which is less than half of the Ares' 350 TBW rating. Endurance may not seem like a significant issue, but many shoppers looking at SSDs in this price range want to keep using the drive for several years rather than upgrade frequently.

Before we get to the overall price equation, there are other value-add features. The Drevo Ares has a strip of blue LEDs on the circuit board and tucked away behind diffusers. That produces an even light along the dominant edge of the drive. There is also a three-way switch that unlocks the different power modes, but that's largely a gimmick feature. We just don't see anyone intentionally slowing the drive down to SATA SSD levels. Drevo offers users a free baseball cap if you jump through a couple of hoops. You also get a coupon to use at an online store.

The Drevo Ares won't break the bank at $179. It costs roughly $20 more than the Intel 600p 256GB on Amazon. We would spend the extra $20 to gain the extra endurance and good looks of the Ares, but I'm not sure this is where we would stop. For another $20 the MyDigitalSSD BPX 480GB looks like an even better value. Some may choose to leap over the $179 price point to gain twice the capacity and mainstream NVMe performance.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Specifications And Features

MyDigitalSSD's BPX is one of the hottest consumer NVMe SSDs on the market. At CES, we learned that the new Boost portable is also the fastest external SSD available. The specifications show strong performance, but, on paper, the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSD bests the Boost. Let's see if MyDigitalSSD's latest technology slays another storage industry giant.

We're always leery when a company makes glorified claims. We see it so often--the best, the fastest, the quietest, the loudest, and so on. No company issues a press release that says, "Our product is good, but another one is a little better."

The new Boost portable SSD certainly looks good. The drive ships with a pair of cables rather than just one and it uses the latest Asmedia high-performance USB to SATA RAID bridge chip--the same in SanDisk's Extreme 900. The company sells the drive as a vanilla enclosure without mSATA devices installed, or with two Samsung PM851 500GB mSATA SSDs installed for a combined capacity of 1TB.

Most users first reaction to a portable SSD is to balk at the cost. The SanDisk Extreme 900 960GB tips the scales at $463.99 on Amazon and the massive 1.92TB model we tested moves the needle to $867.33. Over the last several months, we've tested several low-cost portable SSD products that sell at desktop drive prices. The MyDigitalSSD Boost takes the same route even though it uses Samsung flash and a user-selectable RAID configuration to offer premium features like RAID 0 for high performance or RAID 1 for increased data integrity.

Technical Specifications

The MyDigitalSSD Boost ships in four SKUs that gives users two distinct choices during the buying process. You can buy the system without SSDs for roughly $50, or you can buy a device loaded with 1TB of flash for $280. The second is choice slightly easier; black or matte red for the color option. 

Buying the enclosure with drives might be easier after looking at the scoreboard. MyDigitalSSD ships the loaded model with two Samsung OEM SSDs that offer high performance at a low price point. The drives use planar TLC, like the 840 EVO, but the performance is a little stronger and doesn't have the same performance degradation issues over time. We looked at Newegg and couldn't even find two 512GB-class SSDs for less than half of the loaded Boost price. Buying the loaded drive is your best option unless you plan to build your own 2TB drive with two 1TB mSATA SSDs.

The Boost uses an Asmedia ASM1352R USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10Gbps) to SATA RAID/port multiplier with two SATA 6Gb/s ports. The control chip supports Asmedia's proprietary HydraTek Technology that features RAID 0 (stripe), RAID 1 (Mirror), JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Disks) and Span (large) modes. The Boost ships preconfigured with RAID 0 to increase performance across the two drives.

The performance checks in at 830 MB/s sequential read and 730 MB/s sequential write with USB 3.1 Gen 2. The Boost is also compatible with older USB specifications, such as 2.0 and 3.0. The system ships with two 18-inch cables. Both have a micro USB-B connector on the device side and a USB Type-C or Type-A on the other end.

Pricing And Warranty

Pricing is fairly straightforward for the two options. The diskless Boost currently retails for $49.99 at Amazon. The loaded 1TB Boost is the lowest-priced portable SSD listed at Amazon. It currently sells for $279.99. Both carry a three-year warranty.

Packaging

MyDigitalSSD already loaded our drive with two Samsung SSDs, so the screws were already in place. The DIY model ships with the screws and a small screwdriver in a bag. It includes everything you need except the drives. 

A Closer Look

Portable SSDs fall into two distinct categories. The thin models are small enough to fit in a shirt pocket and look exciting, but usually offer low performance. Some are also comparatively fragile for a flash-based device. The second category is a little larger, features stronger enclosures and often increased performance.

An Inside Job

The enclosure invites us to peek inside. Two screws on either side provide access to the internals. A user-configurable DIP switch on one end allows you to change the RAID configuration. We left our drive in RAID 0 to take advantage of the advanced Asmedia USB-to-SATA RAID controller and utilize the full 10Gbps bandwidth.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Performance Testing And Conclusion

Comparison Products

We pulled out two of our first portable SSDs to compare to the MyDigitalSSD Boost. The Samsung T3 2TB is a high-performance model, but it’s restricted to USB 3.0 performance. It's high-performance V-NAND still makes it a strong option for those looking for a speedy experience in a small package.

The SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSD is the other high-performance model that, on paper, should be slightly faster than the preloaded Boost. The 900 is a little larger and a little heavier.

Two more flash-based portable SSDs made our list. We loved the Adata SD700 in our review, and it features Micron's 384Gbit TLC flash. The SanDisk Extreme 510 is also a TLC-based model.

The LaCie Rugged RAID with two hard disk drives in a predefined RAID 0 array is the only disk-based model in this review. The Rugged features USB 3.1 and Thunderbolt II connections, but we tested the drive with USB like the other products in this review.

Sequential Scaling

The 4KB through 16KB performance is nearly identical for all of the drives. The SanDisk Extreme 900 is slightly faster with small block reads and writes, and also scales faster than many of the other drives as we increase the transfer size. The MyDigitalSSD Boost 1TB also scales well with larger blocks. There is a nasty dip in both 512KB reads and writes that we can't explain.

Full LBA Span Performance

The MyDigitalSSD Boost delivers the highest read and write performance across the full LBA range with 128KB sequential blocks. The drive squeaks by the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSD in throughput, but the performance is slightly less consistent. The Extreme 900 had a sizable dip around the 75-percent mark, which was amplified during the write test. All the SSDs feature support for the TRIM command to keep the flash clean when you delete data, but the command is just a recommendation from the host system that the drive can ignore or push back to a later time. If the command completes successfully, it should keep write performance high and reduce extreme performance drops.

File Transfers

We don't run many synthetic tests on external or portable storage products because the typical workload is sequential in nature. Even though it is possible, users don't run operating systems on these drives. The typical use case is very basic. Most of us simply read and write large pieces of data for archiving or transferring from one location to another.

We often see performance measured in throughput, but most people would rarely say, "Wow, that transfer was really fast—I bet it was doing at least 150 MB/s." Time-based results are easier to interpret because the sense of time is universal.

We tested with the Avatar (2D + 3D Edition) Blu-ray. We used rFactor from the post-installation directory (C:/Program Files) for the Game directory. The Directory Test is a 15.2GB block of data I modeled for another project several years ago. It comes from a daily-use notebook and contains a mix of images, software installations, ISO files, and multimedia that yields a nice real-world workload.

It's rare for one drive to win all three real-world file transfer tests. To date, the MyDigitalSSD Boost is the only model to accomplish this achievement. It makes us wonder why Samsung didn't produce a high-performance portable SSD with RAID instead of focusing on a compact design.

Conclusion

Could it really be that easy? MyDigitalSSD designed an aluminum box with a fairly standard bridge chip, loaded it with mainstream SSDs and walks away with the fastest portable SSD on the market. Apparently, it was just that easy.

As a DIY enthusiast, I have to commend MyDigitalSSD for releasing the Boost as both a fully developed and bring-your-own-disk device. It's important not to overlook the value of the loaded Boost 1TB. At the time of writing, it's the lowest priced 1TB-class portable SSD at both Newegg and Amazon. It ships with older but effective Samsung 3-bit per cell (TLC) planar NAND, but it's still higher quality than what we've seen on many of the new portable SSD products. Samsung has a large flash technology lead, so moving back a generation is still a step forward compared to many of the other portable SSDs we've examined. This also helps MyDigitalSSD keep the price down.

If you want something more modern, MyDigitalSSD offers the Boost as a standalone enclosure. You could add your own mSATA SSD from a previous build or go for the gold with two 850 EVO mSATA SSDs. The price would shoot up significantly in quick order, but it would allow for a Boost 2TB. There should also be a slight performance increase with random data, but for the most part, it would still be better for large sequential transfers.

The unsung hero is the additional layer of protection from running RAID 1. We've seen this feature included in some RAID hard disk drive products, but most often, the systems focus on RAID 0 to increase performance. RAID 1 divides the available data capacity and performance but gives users two copies of the same data. For some, the data integrity is worth the lower performance and capacity reduction. It's another tool, should you choose to use it or not.

The MyDigitalSSD Boost is an excellent product if you require high-performance portable storage. It's not as refined as the Samsung T3 or as rugged as the Adata SD700, but it's faster than both and is a better value. The Boost is what I would call a purse or backpack-sized portable SSD. It's not something you want to carry in the pocket of your jeans. It's just a little too large for that, but it will fit in a coat or jacket pocket.

The Boost is a storage product and not a backup-focused drive that ships with automation software. You can purchase backup software or use the Microsoft tools built into Windows. Some portable SSDs come with advanced software for backup, encryption, and other bells and whistles. The Boost doesn't ship with those, so keep that in mind if your needs go beyond the tools built into your operating system.

Those are the only two detracting points with this product. Overall, we liked the design, its simplicity, and most of all, it's value and performance.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

MyDigitalSSD tried to start the new year off right by revealing Boost, which it claims is the world's fastest portable SSD, at CES 2017.

Just two months ago we tested the MyDigitalSSD BPX. It's one of our favorite M.2 NVMe SSDs because it delivers exceptional performance at a low price. Boost goes a different direction. It's an external, flash-based, portable SSD. We've seen a strong uptick in this type of product due to excess TLC NAND available (prior to the shortage) but what makes Boost different is that it uses two Samsung TLC SSDs in RAID 0 to deliver very high performance. The drives are from Samsung's OEM division and a very good fit in this type of product.

An ASMedia ASM1352R USB to dual SATA RAID controller sits in the middle of the device. USB 3.1 SuperSpeed Plus (10Gbps) is the preferred connection method. With this type of USAP connection, performance is said to be as high as 830 MBps sequential read and 730 MBps sequential write. MyDigitalSSD says this is the fastest USB-connected portable SSD available today, but the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSD claims even better performance. 

Boost is available in two forms from MyDigitalSSD at Amazon. The first is a loaded model with two 512GB Samsung SSDs, effectively 1TB, for $280. You can choose either black or (our favorite) red. You can also purchase just the enclosure for $50, also in black or red.

Both options ship with two 18-inch USB cables, one with a USB Type-C connection and the other with USB Type-A. The portable drive uses a Type-B connector, so every letter in the USB alphabet is represented. Boost is also backwards compatible with older USB standards including 3.0, 2.0, and even 1.0. 

Boost is larger than the Samsung Portable SSD T3 but smaller than the SanDisk Extreme 900 Portable SSD. It delivers higher performance than the Samsung and sells for $100 less; the SanDisk sells for nearly $200 more and uses the same internal RAID 0 configuration to deliver high speeds. The Boost sits in between the two.

Which is why we'll have fun putting all three drives head-to-head along with three new Adata portable SSD products from another recent review. We were also given some other exciting new portable SSD products, so look forward to a number of reviews in the next few months.

Specifications And Features

For weeks, I've teased you with talk of more entry-level NVMe solid-state storage products coming to market to compete with the Intel 600p. We can finally unveil a Phison E7-powered MyDigitalSSD BPX that we feel is a solid value-focused SSD if you are looking to move beyond SATA, but are still shopping on a SATA budget. The BPX doesn't compromise on endurance thanks to 2-bit per cell (MLC) flash technology, and that also leads to increased performance. The best part is the MyDigitalSSD BPX matches Intel's 600p pricing in all three available capacities. 

MyDigitalSSD does not have the same name recognition as many other SSD manufacturers, which some may see as a disadvantage. The company wants to build a brand by making products that sell for excellent prices rather than by throwing advertising dollars around. I've known the CEO for nearly a decade, which spans back to when he imported early SSDs from Asia into the US.

Many early netbook products used SSDs, but upgrade hardware was rarely available. These early SSDs were simply not available in the US, so MyDigital catered to underserved markets. The company would tediously design and manufacturer specialty SSDs that would only work in one or two models, like the Dell Inspiron Mini 9. These products, and the company, never received the glory of releasing the fastest consumer SSD. However, they were heroes to a small community of users looking to get the most out of low-cost consumer products that the manufacturers never intended to be opened or modified.

In recent years, MyDigitalSSD focused on mainstream products with the BulletProof (BP) series. Occasionally the company gets a product positioned at the right price and at the right time. We've tested and even recommended a few BP products before, and we've steered users away from some others.

The new BPX is the company's first NVMe SSD. MyDigitalSSD plans to use it to attack the Intel 600p in the emerging entry-level NVMe space. The little company taking on the giant international conglomerate sounds like a chapter straight out of David versus Goliath, but the tactics used are just as old. MyDigitalSSD plans to offer a superior product that is faster and more robust, and then follow with competitive pricing. Let's see where the stone hit.

Specifications

The MyDigitalSSD BPX will come to market in three capacities of 120GB, 240GB, and 480GB. A Phison PS5007-E7 controller is at the heart of each drive. The E7 is the same controller utilized in the Zotac SONIX add-in card ($348) and Patriot Hellfire M.2 (240GB $160 and 480GB $280). The BPX's big attraction is pricing, but we will get to that in a minute.

NVMe over PCIe allows you to achieve higher performance than you could attain over the SATA bus. The emerging entry-level NVMe products put pricing on par with premium SATA SSDs, but deliver higher performance. The MyDigitalSSD BPX lists all performance data in "up to" numbers that are identical for all capacities, but the performance specifications may change when the drives come to market. The sequential read performance tops 2,600 MB/s while sequential write breaks 1,300 MB/s. Random read performance surpasses 150,000 IOPS using four workers with four threads and the company used the same settings to achieve 265,000 random write IOPS.

Features

• Phison PS5007-E7 Controller
• 2D MLC 4-Plane NAND Flash
• NVM Express 1.2 Interface
• PCI Express Gen 3 x4
• End-to-End Data Path Protection
• Static & Dynamic Wear Leveling
• SMART, TRIM, & RAID Support
• Smart ECC RAID ECC
• Windows & OSX Support
• Slim: 22 x 80 x 3mm

The Phison PS5007-E7 is a modern and feature-rich SSD controller that uses eight channels to maximize data flow. The flip chip design allows the controller to run cool, thus minimizing thermal throttle conditions. Historically, firmware and programming have always been Phison's weak link. The 2.1 firmware release we tested on the Patriot Hellfire M.2 increased real-world application performance, but it also decreased the synthetic benchmark results. The MyDigitalSSD BPX ships with the same 2.1 firmware. Many of the optimizations seem to increase background operations. The processes work to keep a drive performing at high speeds, but the synthetic workloads that most users run to measure performance suffer slightly. The obvious choice is for a tuned environment based on what you run most of the time, rather than what you will run just a few times to verify performance.

MyDigitalSSD paired the controller with Flash Forward (Toshiba / SanDisk) 15nm 2D MLC flash. MLC holds a strong advantage over 3-bit per cell (TLC) flash because it can sustain a high level of write performance before dropping into a lower steady state. MLC also doesn't require an SLC buffer to increase endurance or deliver high burst performance during write workloads.

Pricing And Accessories

The new MyDigitalSSD BPX series will initially sell for $69.99 (120GB), $114.99 (240GB), and $199.99 (480GB). The printed circuit board has provisions for an additional DRAM module so we may eventually see a 1TB model, but MyDigitalSSD has not confirmed nor announced a 1TB model at this time. The problem with such a product is the cost associated with sourcing NAND packages with higher die counts; they are currently in short supply. The current flash shortage has impacted high-density packages more than those with only two, three or four die bundled together. The BPX 480GB features eight die per package, a combination that is in short supply.

The BPX series doesn't ship with any accessories. At the time of writing, the company was preparing retail packaging, but it was not available for this review. We expect the BPX to ship in a blister pack similar to the BP5e M.2 series.

Warranty And Endurance

The MyDigitalSSD BPX ships with a 5-year limited warranty. The "limited" distinction comes from the terabytes written (TBW) endurance measurement, which serves as a general indication of how much data you can write to the flash before the warranty expires. We have finally moved into products with petabyte-class endurance. The BPX 480GB ships with a 1,400TBW endurance rating, which is the highest endurance of any consumer NVMe product on the market. The endurance number drops by half with each decrease in capacity, with a rating of 350TB for the 120GB SSD. For comparison, that is nearly a 5x increase over Intel's 600p 128GB NVMe SSD.

A Closer Look

Physically, the MyDigitalSSD BPX is identical to the Patriot Hellfire M.2 we recently reviewed. We compared the drives side-by-side and found that the NAND part numbers are slightly different. Phison packages the flash but does not provide media with a working decoder like Micron and Intel.

The drive ships in the M.2 2280 form factor. It features components on both sides of the PCB, so you need to check compatibility for specific notebooks. Desktop motherboards and adapter cards provide ample space for dual-sided M.2 components. 

MORE: Best SSDs
MORE: Latest Storage News
MORE: Storage in the Forums

Comparisons And Benchmarks - 512GB Class

Comparison Products

We separated the BPX SSDs into two test pools. On this page, we will cover the 512GB class products, and on the next, we will examine the 256GB products. This allows us to compare more products in each group and give you a better view of the current state of the market.

The MyDigitalSSD BPX is one of the lowest priced NVMe products available, and it joins the Intel 600p in the entry-level category based on price. We also include the Samsung PM961 (to represent the upcoming 960 EVO) and Patriot Hellfire M.2. The other products tip the scale with pricing above $300. Those SSDs include the Intel SSD 750 400GB, OCZ RD400, Samsung 950 Pro, and SM961.

The real comparison, though, is between the Intel 600p and MyDigitalSSD BPX. Both products share similar pricing (at the time of writing), and the vendors sell them as true entry-level NVMe products. We expected the Patriot Hellfire M.2 to receive a price drop, but that has not come yet. You will see why Patriot wants to keep its price a little higher in the performance charts.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs.We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

Many of the NVMe SSDs are faster than the MyDigitalSSD BPX 480GB, but only one product matches its low price point. The BPX is faster than the Intel 600p in many of the tests we'll present in this review. The gap between the two drives will vary depending on the workload type. In sequential reads, the BPX 480GB is a little over 200 MB/s faster than the 600p at queue depth 2.

Sequential Write Performance

The BPX stretches the performance lead in workloads where the 600p's TLC buffer becomes a disadvantage. The 480GB model writes sequential data at nearly double the rate of the 600p. The BPX offers faster application installations and file transfers for data coming to the drive from another high-speed source.

Random Read Performance

The BPX 480GB also offers a large performance increase during small-block random read workloads. Most consumer workloads hover around queue depth 1 and 2 with short interspersed data bursts in the queue depth 4 range. Difficult workloads will widen the performance gap between the two products during random read workloads.

Random Write Performance

One interesting aspect we noticed is that the MyDigitalSSD BPX does not follow the same performance trends as the Patriot Hellfire M.2. The Hellfire M.2 is faster in many of the tests, but the margin is small in all of our four-corner tests.

The performance difference between the Intel 600p and the MyDigitalSSD BPX is much larger.

80 Percent Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

The Intel 600p outperforms the BPX in this single test in our suite. The 600p performs a little better during the sequential mixed workload test. The results surprised us because the 20% data writes should have been faster on the BPX because they come from the MLC flash. We suspect this is a controller firmware issue that Phison could fix with additional tuning.

80 Percent Mixed Random Workload

The mixed random test finds the MyDigitalSSD BPX back above the Intel 600p, but only at mid-level queue depths, and not by a large margin. This may keep the drives closer together in the real-world application workloads we examine later in this review.

Sequential Steady-State

None of the products in the test pool were designed or tuned for enterprise-level steady-state workloads (except the Intel SSD 750 that shares some DNA with Intel's data center products). Samsung tuned the SM961 and 950 Pro for professional applications that can force a drive into light steady-state conditions during heavy use with applications such as Sony Vegas and Adobe Premier.

Video production applications make use of NVMe's lower latency and higher throughput capabilities. Many of the MLC-based products on the chart outperform the best SATA SSDs in this type of environment. The TLC-based products even give the best SATA products a solid run.

Random Steady-State

Intel made a big deal about performance consistency and high random write performance when it first launched its leading-edge NVMe products, but that emphasis has trailed off in recent years. The 600p trails the other products on the chart, and that opens the door for other low-cost products to enter the consumer RAID array portion of the market. The MyDigitalSSD delivers more consistent and higher random write performance under steady-state conditions. The drive would work better in a RAID array hanging off an Intel motherboard PCH.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

Phison, the controller maker for the MyDigitalSSD BPX and Patriot Hellfire M.2, recently released a new firmware to manufacturers that increased real-world application performance. Both drives now perform much better than what the synthetic tests would lead us to believe.

The BPX outperforms the 600p in every application test, but that shouldn't surprise you by now. 

Application Storage Bandwidth

In this view, we average of all the PCMark 8 tests into a single throughput metric to give a general view of performance. We were surprised to see the BPX outperform the Samsung PM961 in many of the tests. The MyDigitalSSD BPX also outperformed the Intel SSD 750 400GB in the averaged results.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

Under heavier conditions, the MyDigitalSSD BPX delivers similar performance to the Samsung PM961 512GB SSD. The BPX, PM961, and the Patriot Hellfire M.2 are very close in all results with both heavy and moderate stress on the drives.

Total Service Time

The Intel 600p suffers from high latency during heavy workloads, along with every product we've tested with IMFT 3D NAND. The service time tests reveal the high latency, but it also highlights that the MyDigitalSSD BPX is very close to the premium Samsung SM961 and OCZ RD400.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time test reveals the clearest distinction between the Intel 600p and BPX. The Intel has to spend more time working to satisfy the same workload. The other tests show that as well, but this test shows the amount of time the SSD spends on the workload, rather than just the finished result.

Notebook Battery Life

Phison's 2.1 firmware didn't fix the high power consumption when the SSD is under notebook battery power. Part of the issue stems from the lack of an optimized NVMe driver. The Intel 600p does not have an optimized NVMe driver, either. Intel told us a software package would be available in mid-November, but Phison hasn't given us a date or any indication that a custom driver will ever be available.

Performance Data - 256GB Class

Comparison Products

In this set of tests, we examine 256GB-class NVMe SSDs to see how the MyDigitalSSD BPX 240GB compares. We don't have a Samsung PM961 to represent the upcoming 960 EVO in this round, but the Intel 600p and Patriot Hellfire M.2 join higher-priced NVMe products from OCZ and Samsung.

All of the products utilize MLC flash except the Intel 600p. As with the previous MyDigitalSSD BPX we tested on the previous page, the 256GB-class BPX shares the same price with the Intel 600p.

Smaller SSDs suffer from reduced parallel I/O to the NAND, which often hamstrings performance. Companies advertise four-corner performance, and we often see some slight performance variation on the specification sheets. Our testing and experience tell us that sustained performance often suffers even more. SSDs also slow down as you store more data on the drive. Smaller SSDs will fill faster, and users typically have a base amount of data after the initial installation. The operating system, office, and other general applications vary by user, but we often find the base software install consumes as much as 30GB.

Sequential Read Performance

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs.We cover four-corner testing on page six of our How We Test guide.

The sequential read performance for the 600p and BPX appear nearly identical to the gap on the previous page. The BPX 240GB outperforms the 600p at most queue depths. The 600p achieves parity at QD4 and 8, but its results before and after fall to the BPX.

The Patriot Hellfire M.2 240GB achieves a slightly higher sequential read performance throughout the entire test. The difference between it and the MyDigital BPX is slight at best. Under any condition, you wouldn't notice the ever-so-slight gap while transferring files from these products without a throughput meter.

Sequential Write Performance

The sequential write test reveals a lot of variation between all of the products in the 256GB NVMe class. The majority of the drives don't cluster together, other than the Hellfire M.2 and the Samsung 950 Pro. The MyDigitalSSD BPX 240GB trails both the Patriot and Samsung by 100 and 150 MB/s, but it outperforms the Intel 600p to the tune of 200 MB/s.

Random Read Performance

The random read performance chart shows the clear distinction between MLC and TLC flash. The difference is minimal at very low queue depths, but the gap gets larger as the workload intensity increases. We place a heavy emphasis on strong random read performance because it has a tangible impact on the general applications in real-world environments. All of the tests target some function or a specific set of functions, but random reads touch nearly every aspect of the computing experience.

Random Write Performance

The Intel 600p fails to launch after establishing a QD1 random write performance of 32,000 IOPS. It does increase slightly, but nothing like the other products on the chart. The MyDigitalSSD BPX 240GB starts the test much stronger with nearly 45,000 IOPS and then scales as we increase the workload intensity.

80 Percent Mixed Sequential Workload

We describe our mixed workload testing in detail here and describe our steady state tests here.

The 512GB Intel 600p outperformed the BPX during the mixed sequential workload, which was its only performance win. The BPX 240GB doesn't suffer the same fate and clearly takes the lead over the 600p, but the difference is still fairly minute. Moving up the food chain, the Hellfire M.2 is slightly faster than both the BPX and 600p.

80 Percent Mixed Random Workload

The Intel 600p 256GB delivers roughly half of the mixed random performance that the 512GB model did. The MyDigitalSSD BPX 240GB doesn't suffer the same decline at higher queue depths. Both drives start with roughly 20,000 IOPS, but the scaling rate as we increase the queue depth is quite a bit different.

Sequential Steady-State

Half of the products on the chart were built with prosumer workloads in mind. The other half fall under a strictly consumer-focused group. The sequential steady-state test shows a clear distinction. The low performance is a radical departure from what we've come to expect from NVMe products in the last year as they've become available to consumers. MLC NAND still provides the best performance under heavy workloads, and that won't change anytime soon. The two Phison SSDs with MLC flash provide a better user experience under heavier workloads compared to the Intel 600p and the other TLC-based products coming to market over the next two months.

Random Steady-State

Small capacity entry-level NVMe SSDs that sell at a very low price point will eventually come into contact with Intel's PCH RAID. The MLC flash advantage also makes a RAID array more powerful compared to TLC-based products. Of the drives shown on this chart, only the Samsung SM961 delivers high performance and solid performance consistency. The purple line shows us an ideal level of performance for a consumer RAID array, and the others exhibit the type of performance that results in inconsistency.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

The BPX 240GB delivers exceptional real-world application performance compared to the other products. This performance variation within the group is very small, but we do see some outliers. The Intel 600p trails the others in every test.

Application Storage Bandwidth

Until the MyDigitalSSD BPX, the Intel 600p could write off its low performance due to its equally low price. The MyDigitalSSD closes the price gap with the 600p, but it delivers very good performance that comes courtesy of its Toggle MLC flash.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The products with a focus on prosumer use stand out in an isolated tier during heavy workloads. The two Phison E7-based SSDs cluster together while the Intel 600p 256GB trails. Under moderate workloads, the two Phison NVMe SSDs join the prosumer products, but the Intel 600p trails the group by over 100 MB/s.

Total Service Time

The service time test reveals the same three performance tiers, but it also highlights a much larger disadvantage for the 600p. This is where things get very interesting. The new Phison E7 firmware with its increased focus on background activity outperforms the other products in the test pool--even the two powerful Samsung SSDs with V-NAND. A drive works much better when it is nearly full if the company optimizes the processes for real-world software performance and efficient handling of background activities like garbage collection, TRIM commands, and wear leveling. We feel that characteristic is more important on smaller SSDs because you will fill them much faster. The new firmware does a very good job of keeping flash cells ready to accept fresh data.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time test results mimic the 480GB models. We would normally look to this area to help explain notebook battery life results (in the next section), but the Phison E7 controller and firmware have other demons at play that hurt battery life.

Notebook Battery Life

Phison has been unable to replicate our low notebook battery life results with the E7 controller. The company is currently working to secure a Lenovo Y700 to isolate and correct any conditions that cause the Hellfire M.2 and BPX to suffer from an energy draining condition. We hope to hear back soon and will report the findings.

Conclusion

As a reviewer, I'm not satisfied with testing a product and reporting on that single item. I've always found the practice to be shortsighted, and it detracts from why readers come to reviews sites in the first place.

I get frustrated when I shop for other products outside of the computer industry. For instance, I'm a big home theater fan. Now that my office sounds like an airport due to servers, switches and other components used to bring you our reviews, I spend a lot of time writing in the only noise-isolated room in the house. So far, it's been nearly impossible to find direct comparisons between home theater receivers. The lack of reviews with direct comparisons isn't isolated to just one market, but the reason why we rarely see these types of head-to-head reviews is the same--most companies don't like to have their products under such heavy magnification.

As a storage industry insider, I often hear and learn about many of the products that are coming to market before their release. When the ground started to vibrate with rumblings of a new entry-level NVMe class, I reached out to several companies for details of proposed and eventual retail product information. Intel was the first to break ground in this new category, but by the time we had products in for testing, we knew others were coming. We also knew nearly every detail surrounding the pending products.

Samsung's 960 series, which features both a prosumer Pro and a mainstream-focused EVO model, was the worst kept secret in the industry. The 960 EVO acts as a clamp on the mainstream due to Samsung's superior TLC V-NAND technology, but it limits the scope of entry-level pricing. Other aspects such as warranty, endurance and expected performance help to determine what the true value-focused products can get away with.

The Intel 600p set a very low bar for pricing, endurance, and performance. After we had published our review, Intel increased the endurance specification for all 600p capacities larger than the 128GB model. The 600p offers slightly more performance than premium SATA-based products, but it is well off the pace of other NVMe products.

The Patriot Hellfire M.2 suffers from the same problem that SSD manufacturers have had to contend with for several products generations; Samsung. Even though Samsung has not released it yet, the 960 EVO is the mainstream product that users will flock to. The 960 EVO pricing starts out at $129 for the 250GB model, then moves to $249 for the 500GB. The Hellfire M.2 currently retails for more than the EVO in both capacities at Amazon ($159.99 for the 240GB and $279.99 for the 480GB). We can write off the Hellfire M.2 after examining this price comparison.

While writing the Patriot Hellfire M.2, we received concrete information on the MyDigitalSSD BPX. MyDigitalSSD chose a combination of components designed to maximize performance-per-dollar. The company had planned this product before Intel released the 600p, and the company hoped to deliver the first entry-level NVMe SSD. The 600p took some of the thunder away, and we suspect it even lowered the price a little. The 600p didn’t affect MyDigitalSSD's decision to attack a new market segment, and the 600p may have actually made it a better product.

At this time, I don't have any more details on emerging products. We're waiting to see what Adata and Kingston bring to market, though. Adata announced the SX8000 NVMe SSD with the SMI SM2260 controller, which is the same controller Intel used in the 600p (and Micron planned to use with the canceled Ballistix by Micron TX3). We suspect the SX8000 will come to market with a mainstream to premium price. It will be one of, if not the first consumer SSD to ship with IMFT 3D MLC flash. Kingston has been quiet about consumer NVMe outside of trade shows where the company shows off both exciting consumer and enterprise SSDs using Phison PS5007-E7 controllers.

The MyDigitalSSD BPX SSD is the current entry-level NVMe SSD market leader. It matches the Intel 600p's pricing while delivering nearly the same performance as the higher-priced Patriot Hellfire M.2. The gap between the two Phison E7 products closes in the smaller 256GB-class capacity, but the real story is how close all of the MLC-based 256GB class drives are regardless of price. We found more performance variation in the larger 512GB-class products, but the MyDigitalSSD, with its aggressive pricing, still delivered more performance-per-dollar than any other product in our test pool.

MyDigitalSSD could have easily released this series with a two- or three-year warranty without remorse. Instead, the company chose to show confidence in the product and went with a premium 5-year warranty that rivals the best products on the market. The drive is not limited by a restrictive endurance rating, either; the 480GB model we tested sports a massive 1.4 PB (1,400 TB) endurance rating. That is 200 terabytes more than the premium Samsung 960 Pro 2TB NVMe SSD we just tested!

The BPX series is a good product, and it may be the NVMe SSD many people have waited for. Despite all of its positive traits, we're not sure if supply can meet demand. MyDigitalSSD is stocking up for a rush of orders, but during a NAND shortage companies without guaranteed NAND supply often see orders reduced or cut altogether. The shortage may become an issue, but I don't think we will see wait times move out to the six-month queue that we currently see with the Samsung SM961.

On the performance side, the MyDigitalSSD BPX is not the drive of choice for a notebook replacement. The drive runs cool and doesn't have any real-world thermal throttling issues, but the Phison E7 controller delivers less than desirable results on battery power in our Lenovo Y700-17. Phison doesn't see the same results while testing with Acer notebooks, and the company plans to debug on an identical Lenovo system to investigate the issue. If Phison and MyDigitalSSD can fix the notebook power issues we've seen, and keep a steady supply for shoppers, this drive may be the best overall NVMe SSD for consumers. It may even cut deep into Samsung's 960 EVO sales.

MORE: Best SSDs
MORE: Latest Storage News
MORE: Storage in the Forums

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Specifications, Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

We recently published a review of the CS2211 SSD from PNY's premium XLR8 line. The CS2211 is aimed at gamers and enthusiasts, and uses Toshiba 15nm MLC flash. The CS1311 we're testing today employs Toshiba's 15nm TLC NAND for more value-oriented shoppers. PNY's PS3110-S10-powered drive uses Phison's new direct-to-die sequential write algorithm to increase performance, so we're anxious to see what it can do.

TLC-based SSDs from every company other than Samsung are slow compared to drives armed with MLC and SLC flash. In fact, they set SSD performance back several generations in some very common workloads. Not every application suffers, but you'll notice big software installations slow to a crawl, for instance. Depending on the flash used, you'll see sequential write speeds drop as low as 70 MB/s after a couple of seconds—that's less than a modern disk-based hard drive!

Phison is the first controller vendor aside from Samsung to address the issue. By using an approach called direct-to-die, sequential data fills the SLC buffer first, and then begins to write directly to the flash. Without the direct-to-die algorithm, information would pass to the small SLC buffer area and then "fold" into the NAND. The buffer needs to purge its data to the flash before accepting more. Usually this happens quickly, so you don't notice a pause during the transfer. But it does affect performance. By skipping over the buffer and writing straight to the NAND, sequential write performance more than doubles on high-capacity SSDs. Lower-capacity drives don't benefit as much, but they're still a lot faster in those operations.

The CS1311 uses Phison's new direct-to-die algorithm, but that's not its only compelling feature. When manufacturers realized that TLC-based SSDs were not popular with mainstream users, their prices dropped quickly. When you consider that value proposition and improved performance together, drives like the CS1311 start looking like solid additions to mid-range PCs.

Specifications

MORE: Best SSDs For The Money 
MORE: Latest Storage News 
MORE: Storage in the Forums

PNY released the CS1311 at four capacity points, and we're surprised to see a 120GB model in the group. Many companies have dropped that size altogether. Given 128Gb density, there are only eight dies in a 128GB-class SSD, which means write performance outside of the SLC buffer is very low. PNY rounds out its CS1311 family with more interesting 240GB, 480GB and 960GB models.

The performance claims differ slightly for each size. Sequential reads hold steady at 550 MB/s for all four models, while sequential writes range from 510 to 520 MB/s. Random I/O also varies a bit depending on the configuration you're looking at, but you won't be able to tell under real-world conditions.

We detailed many of the Phison PS3110-S10 features in a controller-specific story. You can read more about the eight-channel controller here.

Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

The CS1311's strongest feature is its price. PNY is very aggressive here, achieving close to 25 cents per gigabyte for three of its four capacities. At those levels, TLC-based SSDs become more attractive to folks who might have previously eschewed them.

PNY covers its CS1311 family with a three-year warranty that doesn't seem bound by endurance. We searched through the company's stipulations on its website and couldn't find specific mention of a terabytes-written (TBW) limit or any strings tied to the WMI.

Unfortunately, PNY doesn't offer a storage utility apart from a firmware update tool. Phison does though, and it's readily available online. We confirmed that Phison's utility does work with the CS1311 SSDs. PNY does include Acronis True Image HD with this model, and the software key is located in the bundled paper manual.

A Closer Look

PNY sells SSDs online and in stores like Best Buy or Fry's Electronics. The company conveys a lot of information on its retail package, including some performance data that makes shopping in a retail environment easier.

The CS1311 doesn't include a lot of extras, though that's standard practice for low-cost SSDs these days. You get a paper product manual with a code for Acronis True Image HD, plus a 7mm to 9.5mm adapter.

Not that it affects performance, but PNY's CS1311 is a good-looking piece of hardware. It employs a metal chassis with a graphic sticker on the front and another on the back with information printed on it. The back of the drive also has model and serial number info for warranty purposes.

Like most modern SSDs, the CS1311 fits in a 7mm-tall enclosure so it's compatible with the latest notebooks that require low-profile storage.

Both of the CS1311 drives we received for review (240GB and 480GB) host eight flash packages. The 240GB model uses a smaller PCB that it shares with the 120GB implementation, while the 480GB drive shares the same PCB as the 960GB flagship. The larger drives in each of the two groups simply populate more of the pads with flash packages.

The printed circuit boards appear to be identical to Phison's reference design. We've tested several SSDs with the S10 controller now, both with MLC and TLC NAND. Thus far, we haven't encountered any issues with them, nor have we heard any complaints from actual owners.

Four-Corner Performance Testing

Comparison Products

PNY's CS1311 SSDs fall into the entry-level category. We started isolating drives in this group several months ago and built charts with similar products for comparison.

Many of the contenders in this group use triple-level cell flash, including Samsung's 850 EVO, which stands out from the others with superior performance and the best overall value. Mushkin's Reactor SSD is the only model on the charts with multi-level cell flash. We often find it selling for value-oriented prices on Amazon and Newegg.

The Adata SP550, Crucial BX200 and OCZ Trion 150 also make the list. They typically fall to the bottom of the performance charts, but are priced aggressively.

Native TLC Performance And Data Type Comparison

Before we dive into our standard suite, there are a couple of pretests to look at. These will help to explain performance later in the review.

The first looks at native TLC sequential write speed. In HD Tune Pro 5.50, we write 128KB blocks of data sequentially to the drive's full LBA span. The resulting graph shows us performance from the emulated SLC buffer and then the native throughput of TLC memory. PNY's 480GB CS1311 hits 190 MB/s after the SLC cache is exhausted. That's fast enough keep up with file transfers over a GbE network, at least. The 240GB model drops to 170 MB/s, which is also fast enough to write across a network without slowing the transfer down. But both drives come close to the speed of today's fastest 3.5-inch, 7200 RPM hard drives. To be sure, the new direct-to-die write algorithm nearly doubles performance, delivering a large improvement over older S10-based SSDs with TLC flash.

The Anvil Storage Solutions tests provide a performance snapshot with compressible and incompressible data. At least in synthetic testing, the S10 controller can accelerate transfers of compressible information.

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. Four-corner testing is covered on page six of our How We Test guide.

Sequential Read Performance

Phison-based SSDs have always delivered strong sequential read performance. This dates back to the PS3105-S5 processor released in 2012. The 480GB PNY CS2211 scored 542 MB/s in our test at a queue depth of two. That's even a little higher than the MLC-based 480GB CS2211 XLR8 we tested previously. The 240GB CS1311 trails many of the larger models, but still impressed us with a strong showing at low queue depths.

Sequential Write Performance

Both of the CS1311s we're testing post lower sequential write numbers than we were expecting. We looked at other tests run on Phison S10-based drives with TLC flash and couldn't find evidence of this same condition. PNY uses a custom firmware version number, so we are not sure what Phison software is running on the drive to compare against other SSDs with the same controller.

If we were to guess, we'd hypothesize that the emulated SLC buffer is flushing data at a much lower rate than the other S10-based drives with TLC in our charts. In between each of the queue depth tests, we insert a five-second pause called think time. This normally allows each drive to flush its buffer between runs, facilitating a little more variability in the results with SLC mode. You see the effect as wavy lines in the chart.

It also keeps the SSDs out of steady state so they deliver results more like what you see in the real world. PNY's CS1311s are the first SSDs we've tested that drop into sequential steady state with the think time in place. This could have a real impact on performance while multitasking in applications that write several large pieces of data in short succession.

Random Read Performance

The line chart shows the two PNY CS1311 SSDs more positively. But once we look at the raw results, we see that these products suffer from low random read performance at a queue depth of one.

Tht chart also shows us why SSD vendors have a hard time selling entry-level and mainstream SSDs. Samsung's 500GB 850 EVO (available for as little as $147) dominates in our random performance metric. Meanwhile, PNY's 480GB CS1311 sells for $140. But is a $7 savings really enough to overlook such a sizeable difference? We don't think so.

Random Write Performance

The CS1311's random write performance falls in the middle of the test group. Again, we see a wide gap between the 480GB CS1311 and 500GB 850 EVO that goes all the way down to low queue depths. By a queue depth of four, the 850 EVO doubles the CS1311 480GB's numbers. The PNY drives fail to clear their emulated SLC cache fast enough to accelerate moderate workloads.

Mixed Workload And Steady State

80 Percent Sequential Mixed Workload

Our mixed workload testing is described in detail here, and our steady state tests are described here.

We were surprised to see the smaller CS1311 performing slightly better than the higher-capacity model in our sequential mixed workload test. The 240GB CS1311 seems to flush its buffer more frequently than the larger model. And in some workloads, greater performance after the flush makes the smaller drive faster than the large one.  In reality, this would probably only happen in rare corner cases though, seemingly at random.

80 Percent Random Mixed Workload

The random mixed workload test shows us exactly what we expected to see based on our previous random transfer results. Both CS1311s find themselves at the bottom of this chart, even when there aren't many outstanding commands. There is only a slight speed-up from a queue depth of two to eight. We see the drives accelerate after that, but by then it's too late. Most desktop workloads aren't intense enough to see commands stack up.

Sequential Steady State

The sequential steady state tests expose a larger gap between the CS1311 SSDs than we've seen in previous benchmarks. The extra CE channels help the 480GB model. Then again, when we put smaller SSDs against larger ones, the lower-capacity drives almost always succumb. To keep our analysis balanced, we're only focusing on similar capacities. The 240GB CS1311 is only there because we received it at the same time and actually want to see how it fares.

In consumer desktop (80 percent reads) and workstation (70 percent reads) steady state workloads, the 480GB CS1311 does well against other low-cost SSDs. Performance drops off dramatically after 70 percent reads until the direct-to-die write algorithm helps increase performance over the two drives with Silicon Motion's SM2256 controller. 

Random Write Steady State

The preconditioning test shows us behavior we've never seen from an S10-based SSD armed with TLC flash. Something is different with the emulated SLC buffer that we didn't observe from the MyDigitalSSD or Patriot drives. The random steady state chart shows the final 100 seconds of our metric, where we see the buffered writes that peak to 42,000 4KB IOPS. Then, random write performance drops to a very low level before inching back up to 4500 IOPS.

Real-World Software Performance

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

It's difficult for most of us to derive meaning from IOPS, but we all understand time. And getting a time-based benchmark result from software we're all familiar with is even better. If you already have an SSD in your system, then these results should come close to what you see now. But anyone with a mechanical hard drive will appreciate the difference, since disk-based storage often takes twice as long to load basic applications compared to entry-level SSDs.

You can see in the results below that drives are sometimes separated by tenths of a second, which doesn't seem like much.

But the story changes when you look at the throughput of all applications combined and averaged together. The CS1311 SSDs manage to land in the middle of our hierarchy. They're both faster than OCZ's Trion 150 and Crucial's BX200, but can't match Adata's 480GB SP550.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

The PCMark 8 Storage Test operates with very little data on the drive. Performance changes when an SSD is full or nearly full, though. This set of measurements involves lots of data monopolizing the flash. When it comes to entry-level SSDs, we only look at the test's recovery stages. The degrade and steady state stages are more indicative of workstation-class loads, and they fall outside of what you'll see in a mainstream PC.

Phison's S10 controller is an eight-core processor with the resources to dedicate to background activities like garbage collection and wear-leveling. When its associated NAND is almost full, the extra cores help maintain performance. This test uses a five-minute think time (pause in reads and writes), which seems to be enough for the SLC buffer to purge data to the triple-level-cell flash.

Total Access Time

Waiting on storage just doesn't feel right when you have an SSD under the hood. These tests continue to run on an almost full drive, though now we're reporting access times, which is essentially the latency from the combined tests.

PNY's CS1311s perform well under these conditions. This is one of the first entry-level SSD families able to compete against Samsung's 500GB 850 EVO during the test's recovery stage. 

Notebook Battery Life

They don't, however, fare as well here, just like PNY's CS2211 XLR8 SSDs with Toshiba 15nm MLC flash. Three of the four PNY drives we've tested recently deliver 597 minutes of battery life in BAPCo's MobileMark 2012 software., while the top finisher approaches 700 minutes. This result isn't a deal-breaker, per se, but there are SSDs that facilitate better battery life, though.

Conclusion

After testing the MyDigitalSSD BP5e 960GB with Phison's S10 controller and Toshiba 15nm triple-level-cell flash, we had high hopes for PNY's CS1311 at 240GB and 480GB. But the BP5e didn't exhibit the odd behavior we saw here today. Rather, MyDigitalSSD's BP5e looked to be a strong contender.  For now, we're not sure if the CS1311's issues are related to firmware or its lower capacities. After all, these CS1311s are the first smaller S10-based SSDs with TLC running the new direct-to-die firmware.

At their current prices, PNY's CS1311s break new ground for solid-state storage. We can start looking at flash-based devices as more than just operating system boot drives. At 25 cents per gigabyte, they're affordable for external enclosures, console upgrades and even secondary storage inside your PC, a job once reserved for big mechanical disks. Shoot, prices are so low that some enthusiasts can consider SSDs for high-performance NAS appliances. Most of those applications involve predominantly sequential workloads, where the new direct-to-die algorithm has the largest impact on performance. The included Acronis True Image HD software also makes cloning existing drives much easier; it even works for cloning consoles.

As a PC operating system drive, the CS1311 could perform well enough for some, but it wouldn't be my first choice. The price difference between it and the market-leading Samsung 850 EVO just isn't large enough. PNY has already trimmed what it's asking for the CS1311; however, we want to see it even less expensive. The 850 EVO includes a large software suite, a five-year warranty and class-leading performance. In comparison, the CS1311 doesn't have an official software package, it's limited to three-year warranty coverage and the drive only offers mid-range performance compared to other entry-level SSDs. With less than $20 separating drives in the 512GB category, PNY's CS1311 just doesn't wield the value needed to dethrone the mainstream leader already selling at an entry-level price.

The CS1311 is an attractive Phison S10-based SSD with TLC flash, though. By including Acronis True Image HD, PNY can at least claim one notable differentiator. The company has an excellent reputation for building quality SSDs. It just needs to find a way to compete against Samsung's entrenched 850 EVO using a lower price or more value-add features.

MORE: Best SSDs For The Money 
MORE: Latest Storage News 
MORE: Storage in the Forums 

Chris Ramseyer is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware, covering Storage. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. 

Follow Tom's Hardware on Twitter, Facebook  and Google+.

Specifications, Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

Phison's PS3110-S10 controller is the go-to foundation for a number of new SSDs. This month I tested six drives with it, each in a different market segment. Klevv's Urbane drives are in the premium category, while Zotac's Premium Edition family is distinctly mainstream. Today, we're looking at the latest value-oriented implementation" MyDigitalSSD's BP5e.

The Bullet Proof 5 Eco (BP5e) is a low-cost Phison S10-controlled SSD that utilizes Toshiba's 15nm three-bit-per-cell flash. The flash is special because it packs more density per wafer than any other NAND on the market today. Each wafer has a fixed cost, so increasing density lowers the price per bit. Flash accounts for most of an SSD's cost, so anything you can cut from the NAND has a direct impact on pricing.

Phison's S10 controller is roughly one year old now, and it has a proven reliability record. With that requisite covered, we can look at prices and see where the BP5e stacks up. Using Newegg as a reference, we see that the 960GB model costs less than any other 1TB-class drive. At $240, the BP5e undercuts SanDisk's Ultra II by $10 and Mushkin's 1TB Reactor by $20 (the Reactor is our current favorite low-cost, 1TB-capacity-class SSD; you can see the full list here).

MyDigitalSSD is MyDigitalDiscount's house brand. The company offers several drives in difficult-to-locate form factors. It doesn't manufacture SSDs. Rather, MyDigitalSSD contracts with flash vendors to create its own branded products.

Specifications

 * Tom's Hardware Performance Measurement

Previously, we published a deep dive on Phison's S10 controller with several different types of flash. If you want to know more about the processor's finer details, its technologies and features, then check out the full article. Briefly, though, the S10 was designed to work with both MLC and TLC flash. Its advanced design encompasses nearly every market segment, from the enterprise to value-oriented road warriors. Inside, four cores enable enough performance to rip through taxing workloads using MLC memory. Or, via enhanced ECC methods, it can give TLC flash a long life span. The controller's versatility is earning it popularity with SSD manufacturers that appreciate its reliability, fast time to market and support through Phison's in-house firmware division.

Like many other TLC-based SSDs, the BP5e uses an emulated SLC cache to briefly increase write performance. This helps mask TLC's native performance in most day-to-day tasks. MyDigitalSSD doesn't publish random read or write performance in its specs, so we're using our own. Of course, since we're testing the 960GB model, we have to estimate random performance for the 240 and 480GB versions. Sequential performance did come close to MyDigitalSSD's specifications, despite the fact that it uses ATTO to measure performance and we use different software. We plan to explore native TLC sequential write speeds later in the review, and we'll talk about the conditions under which you'll see performance take a hit.

Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

Competition in the SATA SSD market boils down to pricing, which is where MyDigitalSSD stands out. The BP5e costs less than any other modern drive. At just $240, you get a lot of capacity at a very low price. The 480GB BP5e, at just $125, is also an exceptional value. Every time I type that price I have to make sure I wasn't looking at the 240GB model (which sells for $65). There are several other low-cost SSDs that match the lowest-capacity model's price, including Zotac's 240GB Premium Edition 240GB with MLC flash. So, the 240GB BP5e isn't as attractive as the two larger models.

All three BP5e drives include three-year warranties. When the product was first announced, MyDigitalSSD covered the BP5e with a two-year warranty. However, the company extended the warranty to three years when reviewers expressed their displeasure. Although MyDigitalSSD doesn't publish an endurance rating limit, you're not likely to exhaust the flash with normal use in the short time you're covered. The BP5e doesn't include any accessories. You get the drive in a box, sans software, manuals or adapters.

MORE: Best SSDs For The Money
MORE: Latest Storage News
MORE: Storage in the Forums

A Closer Look And Inital Performance Testing

The BP5e employs a 7mm form factor, so it fits in newer platforms that require the thinner z-height. We recently tested a full-sized notebook that weighs close to eight pounds. Inside, it took 7mm-tall SSDs, and wouldn't accommodate standard 9.5mm drives.

Inside, we find the standard PS3110-S10 layout for Toshiba flash. The 960GB model uses eight flash packages, each of which connects to the Phison S10 through a dedicated channel. Two DDR3 DRAM packages serve as page table buffers to increase random I/O performance. 

Data Type Performance Comparison

As we've seen before, Phison's S10 controller gives up small-block throughput when it reads back incompressible data. Using 4KB blocks at a queue depth of one, you're left with one-fifth of the performance versus the same test run using compressible information.

Most of our tests do, in fact, use incompressible data, but your PC won't necessarily be the same. This approach was hotly debated during the SandForce era, before studies on the entropy levels of common file types were published. That research shows most data is compressed to some degree, though there are a few file types that aren't.

Native TLC Sequential Performance

OCZ's Trion 100, the company's first TLC-based SSD, uses Toshiba 19nm TLC and sustains a 64KB-block sequential write speed of 115 MB/s. The drive uses a controller very similar to Phison's S10. The BP5e with Toshiba 15nm TLC and newer firmware than the Trion 100 increases that number to roughly 240 MB/s in the same test. Switching to 128KB blocks results in a performance boost to just under 300 MB/s.

Toshiba's manufacturing node isn't what improves performance. Rather, Phison's powerful ECC engine (enabled by the quad-core processor) with 120-bit error in 2KB data correction allows the drive to write directly to the TLC flash. That might sound like the standard operating procedure, but it isn't on most TLC-based SSDs. To preserve data-write cycles and extend endurance, most other drives with TLC flash first write to the emulated SLC layer, and then send it to the TLC. This is referred to as folding the data.

In the extended write test pictured above, we see the SLC area soaking up incoming data like a sponge. When that's full, new incoming data goes directly to the TLC, rather than waiting on the SLC and a flush before accepting more. We've said before that, for TLC to be a successful mainstream technology, drive vendors would have to hide its native write performance. It appears that Phison and MyDigitalSSD are doing this with the BP5e.

Four-Corner Performance Testing

Comparison Products

To read about our storage tests in-depth, please check out How We Test HDDs And SSDs. Four-corner testing is covered on page six of our How We Test guide.

Sequential Read

Regardless of whether it's complemented by MLC or TLC NAND, Phison's S10 controller blows through large-block sequential workloads. Both the MyDigitalSSD BP5e and Klevv Urbane utilize Toshiba flash. The Urbane comes armed with MLC on a Toggle-mode 2.0 interface, so you'd expect it to be faster. Don't tell that to the BP5e, though, because it's at the top of our chart in this test.

Sequential Write

High performance that maxes out the real-world limits of SATA 6Gb/s carries over to our sequential write test, too. The BP5e doesn't waver much in this benchmark, which is something we often see from TLC-based SSDs.

Random Read

A high entropy rate (that means incompressible data) causes the BP5e's random read performance to suffer. It doesn't help that many of the drives on this chart are higher-end models. There simply aren't a lot of products in the low-cost segment to compare a 960GB BP5e.

Random Write

The BP5e demonstrates weak 4KB random write performance across the queue depth range. It doesn't scale well in our test, mainly because the emulated SLC buffer doesn't get much time to recover. As we see more inexpensive TLC-based drives, we'll look at revising our testing methods to let the buffer replenish fresh cells.

Mixed Workloads And Steady State

80 Percent Sequential Mixed Workload

Our mixed workload testing is described in detail here, and our steady state tests are described here.

Several of the TLC-based SSDs struggle with sequential mixed workloads. SATA is a half-duplex interface, so it can't read and write at the same time. Native command queuing was implemented to help mixed workload performance by stacking and running operations in an optimized order.

80 Percent Random Mixed Workload

Those performance issues apply to random transfers as well, and are compounded by the small 4KB blocks we're moving around. 

Sequential Steady State

The upswing we see when the graph gets to 100 percent sequential writes shows just how much Phison has improved performance with TLC flash. If you look back at the Adata SP550 review, there are several examples of what we more commonly associate with TLC in steady state using the same test. After the 80 percent read measurement, most TLC-based drives level out under 100 MB/s and never recover. Not only does the BP5e stage a recovery, but it also keeps performance north of 200 MB/s through most of our benchmark.

Random Write Steady State

There are two interesting take-aways, one from each random steady state chart. In the first test, where we see preconditioning happen before the measurement, the BP5e has two towering spikes where the SLC buffer flushes and then starts accepting 4KB blocks again. In the second chart, we see the BP5e drop to very low levels. Unlike the 960GB OCZ Vector 180, MyDigitalSSD's drive does not fall to zero (though it does dip to around 250 IOPS, about the same as a high-performance mechanical disk). Fortunately, you will never see a steady state condition under random I/O without running a database server on the drive.

Real-World Software Performance

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

For details on our real-world software performance testing, please click here.

Other than Samsung's 1TB 850 EVO, the 960GB BP5e is the only other TLC-based SSD on our charts. The 850 EVO is a mainstream drive, not a true entry-level contender. With that in mind, it's hardly surprising to see MyDigitalSSD's offering trailing most of the other products we're comparing it to. When you take price into consideration, the BP5e holds up pretty well.

Total Storage Bandwidth

When you look at the combined results in throughput, the BP5e only trails Crucial's BX100 1TB by a small margin. The BX100 was a popular low-cost SSD from the time it was released last April until it was discontinued at the end of November. It launched at $375, and its price crept up to $399 where it sits now. In contrast, the somewhat slower BP5e sells for $240.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

To learn how we test advanced workload performance, please click here.

Given the BP5e's strong emphasis on low cost, we're not too worried about how it fares under heavy workloads. Of the drives tested, it falls somewhere in the middle when we hit it with moderately-demanding benchmarks. In this test environment, drives have less time to recover. Some manufacturers perform background clean-up activities on their drives right away, while others wait until the last few pages are dirty. When clean-up begins, latency increases, reducing measurable throughput. The S10 controller's core count advantage helps under these conditions, nudging the BP5e upon our chart to outperform generally faster SATA SSDs.

Service Time

This is where we really get to the benefit of four cores under moderate workloads (we're also mimicking what performance is like when the drive is almost full). Gamers who install everything to their boot drive should think about this before buying an SSD. after all, nobody snags a 1TB-class drive to leave it mostly empty. 

Notebook Battery Life

For more information on how we test notebook battery life, click here.

It's hard to complain about the battery life numbers turned in by the BP5e, but we did expect a little more. We've come to understand that drives with emulated SLC caches tend to fare a little better than straight MLC-equipped SSDs. SanDisk's Extreme Pro—shown at the top of the chart—is a good example. It uses a proprietary SanDisk technology called nCache, which is basically a single-level cell buffer.

Conclusion

This is the third Phison S10-controlled SSD I've written about recently. The company is really stepping up its game. We always believed that the S10 had a lot of potential, which we weren't seeing from early implementations with the processor inside. For instance, Corsair's Neutron XT didn't live up to the hype. It was probably a little premature. But over the last month, after firmware updates and extensive tuning, more SSD manufacturers are extracting great numbers from the S10.

MyDigitalSSD's BP5e isn't the first product we've seen pairing the S10 and TLC flash. But it is the first implementation we'd consider buying. The difference between this SSD, OCZ's Trion 100 and some of the unreleased models in our lab is night and day. We've seen a ton of low-cost TLC-based drives that can't sustain sequential writes any higher than 90 to 110 MB/s. And yet, we have mechanical hard drives that hit 200 MB/s. Ever since we started testing storage devices with TLC flash, I've maintained that an SSD simply can't drop to hard drive-like performance levels and still be considered acceptable.

What makes the BP5e special is its advanced error-correction technology. There are three levels of data protection. Without them, writing directly to the TLC flash would chew through its endurance rating. MyDigitalSSD doesn't publish those numbers, nor did it have an estimate available when I asked. But we don't put a lot of emphasis on endurance ratings anyway because they often prove inaccurate. A manufacturer can't predict your ratio of random to sequential writes, which affects how quickly the flash wears down. Instead, we get a more general three-year warranty to protect against failure.

The BP5e is the least-expensive 1TB-class SSD right now. I'm not sure how long it'll keep that title, but we have spoken with SSD manufacturers that told us MLC-equipped drives won't hit similar prices any time soon. The flash simply costs too much. If a competitor does introduce a TLC-based drive around the BP5e's price, it'll most likely also include Phison's S10 controller. JMicron and Silicon Motion don't have TLC-enabled controllers that scale well to 1TB, and they can't match the S10's performance.

MORE: Best SSDs For The Money
MORE: Latest Storage News
MORE: Storage in the Forums

Chris Ramseyer is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware, covering Storage. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

MyDigitalSSD has released its Super Cache 2 mSATA SSD, which is a lineup of low-density, high-speed SSDs that come with the HybriDisk cache software package.

The units feature the new PHISON S9 controller, which is a controller that delivers higher speeds between the 24 GB to 128 GB 'sweet spot.' Wired to the S9 controller, users will find a cluster of Toshiba 19 mm MLC NAND flash. With this combination, the units can sustain read speeds of up to 550 MB/s and write speeds between 160 MB/s and 200 MB/s, depending on its capacity.

Obviously, as expected from any modern day SSD, the units also feature the NCQ command set and have TRIM support.

The units will be released in a 24 GB version, 32 GB, 64 GB, and 128 GB; these have MSRPs of $39.99, $42.99, $62.99 and $99.99, respectively. Currently, they are only available for pre-order.