Skip to main content

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

Benchmark Results: Iometer

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

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

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iometer, 4 KiB Read QD 1 IOPSIometer, 4 KiB Write QD 1 IOPS
Samsung 8305 72115 849
Crucial m45 84915 900
Vertex 47 03616995
Plextor M5S7 07615 823
Plextor M5 Pro7 72916 688
  • You have the wrong Marvell controller listed for the crucial M4 and the Plextor M5S. This controller is new.
    The old one was the 88SS9174-BKK2.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/plextor-m3-crucial-m4-octane-performance-pro,3178.html
    Reply
  • mayankleoboy1
    can we have a benchmark of the time it takes to install a fresh copy of Win7+SP1 on a SSD ? Because thats the first thing a user will do after buying a new drive.
    Reply
  • echondo
    mayankleoboy1can we have a benchmark of the time it takes to install a fresh copy of Win7+SP1 on a SSD ? Because thats the first thing a user will do after buying a new drive.
    I believe we can all assume it will take around 10-15 minutes. My old SATA2 Vertex drive can have Windows installed with all the Windows updates I want in around 20 minutes, it would be less time but I have to install all my drivers first for my motherboard :p
    Reply
  • fat-chunk
    Long live SSDs!
    Reply
  • grantwar
    I'd love to see how this drive fares against the samsung 840 Pro.
    Reply
  • SpadeM
    grantwarI'd love to see how this drive fares against the samsung 840 Pro.
    Here you go:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/665?vs=646
    Reply
  • JeanLuc
    I was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software.
    Reply
  • merikafyeah
    SpadeMHere you go: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/665?vs=646Wow. The 840 Pro beat the M5 Pro in virtually everything according to that data. The 840 Pro does cost significantly more though.
    Reply
  • merikafyeah
    JeanLucI was on Youtube the other day on the Corsair channel and they were showing the advantages of 'Ram cache' which was lights years faster then SSD's in therms of throughput. Could Toms consider doing an article into Ram cache as I think it would be of interest to people who have 16-32Gb systems (since DDR3 is cheap at the moment) can spare the extra system ram to cache files and software.TheSSDReview did something similar:
    http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/romex-fancycache-review-ssd-performance-at-13gbs-and-765000-iops-in-60-seconds-flat/

    No point in even comparing RAM to SSDs, as even "slow" RAM is faster than even the best SSDs by about the same amount as the best SSDs are faster than floppy disks.
    Reply
  • aicom
    This review would have been impressive if it was published 2 weeks ago. With the 840 Pro out, it simply blows the M5P out of the water. Too bad it wasn't included in the benchmark charts here.
    Reply