HighPoint Rocket 1608A add-in card review: More drives, more power

For when you really need 56 GB/s.

Highpoint Rocket 1608A charts and images
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

We haven't tested a RAID adapter in quite some time, certainly not with our current SSD test rig. What's more, the HighPoint Rocket 1608A doesn't function ideally in our regular platform, and HighPoint recommends using AMD systems (or at least not the Z790 board that we have). As such, it doesn't make sense to compare performance of the 1608A with regular SSDs.

We did run our normal test suite, just for kicks, but most of the results are unremarkable — DiskBench, PCMark 10, and 3DMark don't hit the higher queue depths necessary to let the hardware shine. In fact, in some cases the use of software RAID0 can even reduce performance for the lighter storage workloads that we normally run.

To that end, we've elected to run a more limited set of tests that can push the hardware to its limits. If you just want an adapter that allows the use of eight M.2 SSDs, whether with RAID or not, the 1608A can also provide that functionality, but it's a rather expensive AIC for such purposes.

Synthetic Testing — CrystalDiskMark

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Shane Downing
Contributing Writer

Shane Downing is a Contributing Writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering consumer storage, PC hardware, and AI.

With contributions from
  • Amdlova
    60 seconds of speed after that slow as f.
    For normal user it's only burn money...
    For enterprise user? Nops
    For people with red cameras epic win!
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Would love to know what the issue with the Intel platforms is as I can't think of any logical reason for it.

    Broadcom is the reason why this card is so expensive as they massively inflated costs on PCIe switches after buying PLX Technology. There haven't been any reasonable priced switches at PCIe 3.0+ since.

    I have a pair of PCIe 3.0 x4 dual M.2 cards that I imported from China because the ones available in the US were the same generic cards but twice as much money and they were still ~$50 per. Dual slot cards with PCIe switches from western brands are typically $150+ (most of these are x8 with the exception of QNAP who has some x4).
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    thestryker said:
    Would love to know what the issue with the Intel platforms is as I can't think of any logical reason for it.

    Broadcom is the reason why this card is so expensive as they massively inflated costs on PCIe switches after buying PLX Technology. There haven't been any reasonable priced switches at PCIe 3.0+ since.

    I have a pair of PCIe 3.0 x4 dual M.2 cards that I imported from China because the ones available in the US were the same generic cards but twice as much money and they were still ~$50 per. Dual slot cards with PCIe switches from western brands are typically $150+ (most of these are x8 with the exception of QNAP who has some x4).
    Can you share the model?
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Amdlova said:
    Can you share the model?
    This is the version sold in NA which has come down in price ~$20 since I got mine (uses PCIe 3.0 switch):
    https://www.newegg.com/p/17Z-00SW-00037?Item=9SIAMKHK4H6020
    You should be able to find versions of on AliExpress for $50-60 and there are also x8 cards in the same price range, just make sure they have the right switch.

    The PCIe 2.0 one I got at the time this was the best pricing (you can find both versions for less elsewhere now): https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256803722315447.htmlI didn't need PCIe 3.0 x4 worth of bandwidth because the drives I'm using are x2 which allowed me to save some more money. ASM2812 is the PCIe 3.0 switch and the ASM1812 is the PCIe 2.0 switch.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    @thestryker Thanks
    Reply
  • razor512
    Amdlova said:
    60 seconds of speed after that slow as f.
    For normal user it's only burn money...
    For enterprise user? Nops
    For people with red cameras epic win!
    Sadly the issue is many SSD makers stopped offering MLC NAND. Consider the massive drop in write speeds after the pSLC cache runs out. Consider even back in the Samsung 970 Pro days.
    As long as the SOC was kept cool, the 1TB 970 Pro (a drive from 2018) could maintain its 2500-2600MB/s (2300MB/s for the 512GB drive) write speeds from 0% to 100% fill.

    So far we have not really seen a consumer m.2 NVMe SSD have steady state write speeds hitting even 1.8GB/s steady state until they started releasing PCIe 5.0 SSDs, and even then, you are only getting steady state write speeds exceeding that of old MLC drives at 2TB capacity; effectively requiring twice the capacity to achieve those speeds.

    The Samsung 990 Pro 2TB drops to 1.4GB/s writes when the pSLC cache runs out.

    If anything, I would have liked to see SSD makers continue to produce some MLC drives, since prices have come down, compared to many years ago, a modern 2TB SSD is still cheaper than 1TB drives MLC drives from those days. They could literally make a 1TB drive using faster MLC and charge the price of the 2TB TLC drives, and offer significantly higher steady state write performance for write intensive workloads.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    Amdlova said:
    60 seconds of speed after that slow as f.
    For normal user it's only burn money...
    For enterprise user? Nops
    For people with red cameras epic win!
    This is largely contingent on the SSDs being used. Samsung 990 Pro 2TB (which is what HighPoint provided) write at up to 6.2 GB/s or so for 25 seconds in Iometer Write Saturation testing, until the pSLC is full. Then they drop to ~1.4 GB/s, but with no "folding state" of lower performance. So best-case eight drives would be able to do 49.6 GB/s burst, and then 11.2 GB/s sustained.

    The R1608A doesn't quite hit those speeds, but having software RAID0 and a bit of other overhead is acceptable. I'm a bit bummed that we weren't provided eight Crucial T705 drives, or eight Sabrent Rocket 5 drives, because I suspect either one would have sustained ~30 GB/s in our write saturation test.
    razor512 said:
    Sadly the issue is many SSD makers stopped offering MLC NAND. Consider the massive drop in write speeds after the pSLC cache runs out. Consider even back in the Samsung 970 Pro days. As long as the SOC was kept cool, the 1TB 970 Pro (a drive from 2018) could maintain its 2500-2600MB/s (2300MB/s for the 512GB drive) write speeds from 0% to 100% fill.

    So far we have not really seen a consumer m.2 NVMe SSD have steady state write speeds hitting even 1.8GB/s steady state until they started releasing PCIe 5.0 SSDs, and even then, you are only getting steady state write speeds exceeding that of old MLC drives at 2TB capacity; effectively requiring twice the capacity to achieve those speeds.

    The Samsung 990 Pro 2TB drops to 1.4GB/s writes when the pSLC cache runs out.

    If anything, I would have liked to see SSD makers continue to produce some MLC drives, since prices have come down, compared to many years ago, a modern 2TB SSD is still cheaper than 1TB drives MLC drives from those days. They could literally make a 1TB drive using faster MLC and charge the price of the 2TB TLC drives, and offer significantly higher steady state write performance for write intensive workloads.
    You need to look at our many other SSD reviews, where there are tons of drives that sustain way more than 1.4 GB/s. The Samsung 990 Pro simply doesn't compete well with newer drives. Samsung used to be the king of SSDs, and now it's generally just okay. 980/980 Pro were a bit of a fumble, and 990 Pro/Evo didn't really recover.

    There are Maxio and Phison-based drives that clearly outperform the 990 Pro in a lot of metrics. Granted, most of the drives that sustain 3 GB/s or more are Phison E26 using the same basic hardware, and most of the others are Phison E18 drives. Here's a chart showing one E26 drive (Rocket 5), plus other E18 drives that broke 3 GB/s sustained, with one 4TB Maxio MAP1602 that did 2.6 GB/s:

    359
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    thestryker said:
    Would love to know what the issue with the Intel platforms is as I can't think of any logical reason for it.
    I think it's just something to do with not properly providing the full x16 PCIe 5.0 bandwidth to non-GPU devices? Performance was bascially half of what I got from the AMD systems. And as noted, using non-HEDT hardware in both instances. Threadripper Pro or a newer Xeon (with PCIe 5.0 support) would probably do better.
    Deleted member 2824971 said:
    Here is what I mean:

    If you put a full complement of PCIe v4 NVMe drives on the AIC, you'd only need 8 lanes of PCIe v5 to manage the bandwidth. But it would require fully buffering the packets that are being switched and negotiating PCIe bandwidths upstream and downstream independently.
    Yeah, that's wrong. There are eight M.2 sockets, each with a 4-lane connection. So you need 32 lanes of PCIe 4.0 bandwidth for full performance... or 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 offer the same total bandwidth. If you use eight PCIe 5.0 or 4.0 drives, you should be able to hit max burst throughput of ~56 GB/s (assuming 10% overhead for RAID and Broadcom and such). If you only have an x8 PCIe 5.0 link to the AIC, maximum throughput drops to 32 GB/s, and with overhead it would be more like ~28 GB/s.

    If you had eight PCIe 3.0 devices, then you could do an x8 5.0 connection and have sufficient bandwidth for the drives. :)
    Reply
  • thestryker
    JarredWaltonGPU said:
    I think it's just something to do with not properly providing the full x16 PCIe 5.0 bandwidth to non-GPU devices? Performance was bascially half of what I got from the AMD systems. And as noted, using non-HEDT hardware in both instances. Threadripper Pro or a newer Xeon (with PCIe 5.0 support) would probably do better.
    Yeah it certainly seems like it's using 8 lanes, but that doesn't really make any sense which would point to an implementation issue either on the card side or client platform. I can't think of any other tests done on an Intel client platform that used more than 8 PCIe 5.0 lanes of bandwidth, but I'd still lean towards it being an issue on the side of the card.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Deleted member 2824971 said:
    I got a Sabrent 4-drive M.2 to PCIe x4 v3 adapter mostly because I didn't just want to throw away all these nice 1TB and 2TB Samsung 970 EVO+ drives as I was upgrading to 4TB WD v4 units and looked for the most economic way to reycle them.

    With the lower capacity SATA SSDs years before this was easy: 4-8x passive SATA chassis were cheap and then I'd just use a 2nd hand SAS RAID controller to turn them into a cache pool.

    But sacrificing 4 PCIe lanes, perhaps even v5 lanes to a just a TB of storage wasn't economical while switch cost, cable extensions or M.2 to U.2 converions also added horrific costs.

    It will only use two PCIe v3 lanes for each drive, but since the upstream port is limited to 4 lanes anyway that wan't too much of a loss, even if I'd have preferred full downstream lanes (at the same price ;-)

    I also was going to intially use it to get 8TB of NVMe capacity when NVMe v4 SSDs still cost a kidney. But once the WD850 4TB v4 drive came at Samsung Evo+ economy (and those never went to 4TB), that no longer made sense.

    At €150 it was an experiment worth making without provable benefits, the HighPoint at 10x is another matter.

    I had at one point identified the PCIe switch maker in that device, but I can't remember more than it being an Asian company making two different devices for 8 and 16 PCIe v3 lanes total, but always with a fixed 4:1 up/down ratio at v3 speeds. And it could be the one that's also used in the cheap M.2 RAID NAS that made its round some months ago...
    ASM2812 only has 8 downstream so that's why the 4 port is limited to 2 lanes per drive: https://www.asmedia.com.tw/product/507Yq4asXFzi9qt4/7c5YQ79xz8urEGr1
    ASM2824 is the one with 16, but it's also generally used in 8 lane cards so I'm guessing they chose to save money rather than optimize individual drive throughput potential.
    Deleted member 2824971 said:
    I'd say it's Avago's fault, who now have donned the Broadcom mantle to cover older sins.
    Broadcom had already bought PLX Technology and raised the prices before that acquisition happened.
    Reply