SSD overclocking yields big performance gains — overclocked SSD controller and NAND may lead to premature degradation or data loss, though

SATA SSD overclocked to perform at maximum specification
(Image credit: Gabriel Ferraz - Detetive Virtual de SSDs)

How can you make the best SSDs even better? Overclocking it, of course. Suppose you ever wonder what kind of performance you can expect from an overclocked SSD. In that case, Youtuber Gabriel Ferraz documents the whole process with adequate details to show this process and the performance one could achieve.

Ferraz is doing it out of curiosity, like any hardware enthusiast would, achieving some results with certain limitations and restrictions. The video is interesting as it shows the selection process of the suitable SSD for the job and its result.

The overclocker uses an unknown drive called RZX Pro 240GB DRAM-Less SATA-based SSD for this adventure. He didn't choose an NVMe SSD since these drives already run at their best potential, showing little to no visible performance yield for this experiment. The other reason why he chose this is because of the internal components used in this SSD.

Right Tools For The Right Job

It uses a Silicon Motion SM2259XT2 controller, vital in this overclock. The SM2259XT2 has a single-core ARC 32-bit CPU with a maximum clock speed of up to 550 MHz according to its specification, while this controller was clocked down to 425 MHz. The other benefit is that this controller has two channels with a bus speed of 400 MHz, with eight Chip Enable commands that allow communication with 16 dies via interleaving. This SSD uses a specific 96-layer Kioxia (formerly Toshiba) TLC BiCS4 256Gb NAND, which is also rated to run at 400 MHz and effectively uses 193.75 MHz.

There could be many reasons why this SSD is operating its controller and NAND that lower specification, either for endurance or to maintain a lower power consumption. There's also a chance these chips may not have passed the company's QC standards for multiple reasons, which usually gets sold to smaller-tier SSD makers for local markets.

He also used a specific SATA to USB adapter with a JMS578 bridge controller and a clamp. He's not showing the entire process, so users couldn't do it, voiding their SSD's warranty and any potential issues with respective companies.

This is where the hard part begins. He uses Mass Production Tools to program the SSD using compatible firmware for fine-tuning multiple settings. Naturally, it would require technical knowledge and a series of trial-and-error processes to gain the maximum possible performance while keeping it stable for benchmarking. Ultimately, he got the controller stable at 500 MHz, increasing by 17.6%. But the NAND receives a much more significant boost to 400 MHz, bringing in a 106% increase.

'Shall Thou Reap What He Sowed?'

Gabriel uses CrystalDisk Mark, 3DMark, and PCMark 10 for initial benchmarking. Right off the bat, he could not see sequential read/write performance increase because of SATA III's limitation. This was expected initially, but he noticed a slight latency decrease. What did improve is the drive's random read and write. Random read and write performance increased by 27% and 10%, respectively. 3DMark and PCMark 10 show an increase in performance. It also did not make any difference with Adobe Premiere Pro 2021 and game loading times—the same with the 6.20 GB ZIP file transfer.

Regarding temperature and power draw, he shows the SSD always operates at 40 degrees Celsius under stock settings while the overclocked drive operates at 45 degrees Celcius. The manufacturer programmed the drive to work up to 40 degrees Celsius, making the drive clock itself down when needed to maintain this limit. This also increased the max power draw from 1.16 to 2.01 watts, resulting in lower efficiency overall. Even though the drive was overclocked to operate with higher bandwidth without thermal throttling, its efficiency was reduced to almost half compared to its stock settings. Eventually, the SSD died when he completed his barrage of benchmarks.

This isn't surprising for Gabrielle, as the whole point of this exercise is to see if one can do this at home using simple tools. While he did that, he had the intimate knowledge needed to select the suitable SSD using the right components, tools, and source to get it from. Furthermore, it required specific knowledge to know which settings could be changed. It is also unsurprising that some SSDs will have lower than the maximum possible clock speed for multiple reasons. At the same time, SSD makers set their NAND and controller up to the best possible clock speed and a fixed temperature for the highest possible endurance and performance. The rest depends on the components selection process and its quality. 

Gabriel answers the question and proves one thing: Anything with a clock speed can be overclocked with the right tools and knowledge.

Freelance News Writer
  • vanadiel007
    Imagine if they would have stuck for the 2.5" form factor for drives? Cooling would not be an issue, speeds could have been higher than current M2.

    But, they had to go to tightly packed M2 directly connected to the motherboard. Now they have issues cooling it and are coming out with all kind of contraptions to cool them down. Who would have thought.
    Reply
  • Vanderlindemedia
    He killed the drive, at the end of the video. With just that small clock increase, the flash chips gave up.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    vanadiel007 said:
    Imagine if they would have stuck for the 2.5" form factor for drives? Cooling would not be an issue, speeds could have been higher than current M2.
    U.2 & U.3 drives are 2.5" and can indeed dissipate much more power than M.2 drives. The highest I've seen was an Optane SSD which burned over 20 W, at peak.

    vanadiel007 said:
    But, they had to go to tightly packed M2 directly connected to the motherboard. Now they have issues cooling it and are coming out with all kind of contraptions to cool them down. Who would have thought.
    Yup. M.2 was a form factor clearly made by people thinking first & foremost about the laptop market. I wish U.2 would have a resurgence in the enthusiast community, but if PCIe 5.0 wasn't enough to make that happen, we shouldn't hold out further hope.

    You can still get datacenter U.2 drives for somewhat accessible prices, although not as good as most of 2023. I got one of these for $311, but now it's up to $517. I saw it go as low as $276, right after I place my order!
    https://www.provantage.com/solidigm-ssdpf2kx038t1n1~7SLDG02U.htm
    You can find plenty of reviews out there, but I've never seen anyone run gaming benchmarks on them. I think they should be good on latency-intensive games, like Starfield. Also, you can buy them in much higher capacities than consumer drives.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    bit_user said:
    U.2 & U.3 drives are 2.5" and can indeed dissipate much more power than M.2 drives. The highest I've seen was an Optane SSD which burned over 20 W, at peak.


    Yup. M.2 was a form factor clearly made by people thinking first & foremost about the laptop market. I wish U.2 would have a resurgence in the enthusiast community, but if PCIe 5.0 wasn't enough to make that happen, we shouldn't hold out further hope.

    You can still get datacenter U.2 drives for somewhat accessible prices, although not as good as most of 2023. I got one of these for $311, but now it's up to $517. I saw it go as low as $276, right after I place my order!
    https://www.provantage.com/solidigm-ssdpf2kx038t1n1~7SLDG02U.htm
    You can find plenty of reviews out there, but I've never seen anyone run gaming benchmarks on them. I think they should be good on latency-intensive games, like Starfield. Also, you can buy them in much higher capacities than consumer drives.
    Worth noting is that M.2 has an average power limit of ~12W (something like that), while U.2 has a limit of 25W. I don't mind the form factor, though, as it cleans up most builds. Stuffing in a U.2 drive means running two more cables to the front of the case. I was quite happy to stop putting optical drives and HDDs into my builds back in... maybe 2015.
    Reply
  • richardvday
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Worth noting is that M.2 has an average power limit of ~12W (something like that), while U.2 has a limit of 25W. I don't mind the form factor, though, as it cleans up most builds. Stuffing in a U.2 drive means running two more cables to the front of the case. I was quite happy to stop putting optical drives and HDDs into my builds back in... maybe 2015.
    The M2 form factor is here because its simpler, for most people(we are not their target audience ) one drive is plenty. Simpler means Cheaper, more convenient. As far as cooling goes its just like CPUs , we didn't need fans at first that didn't come until later when the performance forced more heat into our cases. Back in the day the only fan most of us had was in the PSU. Now I have 7 fans not counting my CPU cooler or my GPU so actually I have 11 fans. So now performance has drastically increased so more heat means we need more fans. Par for the course.
    I miss having my burner in the computer actually. Its much more expensive to replace the external drives. Also desktop space is always at a premium. I am not at all surprised about this efforts results. Nowadays manufacturers tend to overclock at the factory pretty much leaving very little performance to be had by the end users. There are still some golden eggs to be had good luck finding one though, the silicone lottery is real. I dont even bother overclocking anymore the gains tend to not be worth the effort.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Worth noting is that M.2 has an average power limit of ~12W (something like that), while U.2 has a limit of 25W. I don't mind the form factor, though, as it cleans up most builds. Stuffing in a U.2 drive means running two more cables to the front of the case. I was quite happy to stop putting optical drives and HDDs into my builds back in... maybe 2015.
    I'm a big fan of Multi-Drive Storage Backplanes inserted into standard 5¼" or 3½" drive bays myself.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Stuffing in a U.2 drive means running two more cables to the front of the case.
    My cases still have 2.5"/3.5" bays right behind the intake fans, which is perfect for U.2 drives. None of this nonsense with ginormous, gaudy heatsinks on M.2 drives installed awkwardly on the mobo, and in a spot that might not have good airflow (thereby necessitating an active cooler),

    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    I was quite happy to stop putting optical drives and HDDs into my builds back in... maybe 2015.
    I still have optical drives in mine, so there!: P
    Reply
  • bit_user
    richardvday said:
    Back in the day the only fan most of us had was in the PSU. Now I have 7 fans not counting my CPU cooler or my GPU so actually I have 11 fans.
    Ironically, fanless PSUs are actually getting more common, leaving the PSU as one of the few places we actually lost a fan!

    BTW, I have a special love for fanless mini-PCs. I have a fanless Gemini Lake Refresh that I'm likely to replace with Alder Lake N97, at some point. It's not my main PC, but rather an always-on media server.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    Worth noting is that M.2 has an average power limit of ~12W (something like that), while U.2 has a limit of 25W. I don't mind the form factor, though, as it cleans up most builds. Stuffing in a U.2 drive means running two more cables to the front of the case. I was quite happy to stop putting optical drives and HDDs into my builds back in... maybe 2015.
    12w of powa in PC... some notebook manufacturers recommend using maximum 2tb... because don't have the minimum specs of the m.2 standard.
    Reply
  • kaalus
    What's the point? My Windows 11 can delete maybe 100 or 200 files per second on my 990Pro, which according to spec can do 1.5million IOPS. So it would seem, it takes 15,000 I/O operations to delete a single file in NTFS? That's crazy inoptimal. Even in a journalled filesystem it should not take more than 2 or 3.

    So, don't overclock your SSDs - optimize NTFS, or ditch Windows.
    Reply