A 1400 MB/s SSD: ASRock's Z97 Extreme6 And Samsung's XP941
Z97 ushers in new and exciting ways to attach and use storage devices. With support for M.2 PCIe and SATA Express, two sides of the same SSD coin, Z97 improves on Z87. But not everywhere. AsRock add to Z97 with some new tricks, and so we take a look.
Testing Samsung's XP941 On Z97 Express
In most of the stories we write, it doesn't matter where Windows is installed. Storage testing is a bit different though, particularly when we need to turn off the PCH's SATA ports. Thus, utilizing Windows to Go makes a lot of sense. A fully-functioning image can be ported from one machine to another over USB 3.0. It's just as quick as an installation to a SATA-attached SSD, and it enables testing methodologies otherwise considered impractical.
Note also that we're using Intel's new Rapid Storage Technology 13-series driver. It doesn't have much bearing on today's story; the fancier features will get rolled into a version of the RST software later this year. But it was time to upgrade, and so I have.
Test Hardware | |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i5-4670K (Haswell), 22 nm, 3.3 GHz, LGA 1150, 6 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled |
Motherboard | ASRock Z97 Extreme6 |
Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1866 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V |
System Drive | Muskin Ventura Ultra 240 GB USB 3.0 UASP |
Drive(s) Under Test | Samsung MZHPU512HCGL-00000 512 GB M.2 Gen 2 x4 PCIe, AHCI |
Power Supply | Seasonic X400 FL2, 80+ Platinum |
Chassis | Lian Li A01-NB ATX |
HSF | Noctua NH-L9i |
Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 4600 |
OS | Windows 8.1 Enterprise, Windows to Go |
Drivers | STORAHCI.SYS (Generic AHCI), Intel RST 13.1 (SATA) |
Comparison Drives | Plextor M6e 256 GB M.2 PCIe x2, Firmware: 1.00 |
Row 12 - Cell 0 | Plextor M6S 256 GB SATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: 1.00 |
Row 13 - Cell 0 | Plextor M6M 256 GB mSATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: 1.00 |
Row 14 - Cell 0 | Adata SP920 256 GB SATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: MU01 |
Row 15 - Cell 0 | Crucial M550 512 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: MU01 |
Row 16 - Cell 0 | Intel SSD 730 480 GB SATA 6 Gb/s, Firmware: L2010400 |
Row 17 - Cell 0 | SanDisk X210 512 GB, Firmware X210400 |
Row 18 - Cell 0 | Crucial M500 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: MU02 |
Row 19 - Cell 0 | Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: EXT0AB0Q |
Row 20 - Cell 0 | Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware DXM04B0Q |
Row 21 - Cell 0 | Seagate 600 SSD 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: B660 |
Row 22 - Cell 0 | OCZ Vector 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.0 |
Row 23 - Cell 0 | Plextor M5 Pro 256 GB SATA 6Gb/s Firmware: 1.02 |
Benchmarks | |
---|---|
ULINK DriveMaster 2012 | DM2012 v980, JEDEC 218A-based TRIM Test, Protocol Test Suite |
Test Specific Hardware | SAS/SATA Power Hub, DevSlp Platform, PCIe SSD Power Adapter |
Tom's Hardware Storage Bench v1.0 | Intel iPeak Storage Toolkit 5.2.1, Tom's Storage Bench 1.0 Trace Recording |
Iometer 1.1.0 | # Workers = 1, 4 KB Random: LBA=16 GB, varying QDs, 128 KB Sequential, 16 GB LBA Precondition, Exponential QD Scaling |
PCMark 8 | PCMark 8 2.0.228, Storage Consistency Test |
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: Testing Samsung's XP941 On Z97 Express
Prev Page Z97 Express: The Same Old Bandwidth Limitations Next Page Results: A PCIe SSD's Sequential Performance-
aminebouhafs Once an SSD in plugged into the Ultra M.2 slot, the bandwidth between central processing unit and graphics processing unit is cut-down by half. Therefore, while the end-user gets additional SSD performance, the end-user may lose some GPU performance because of insufficient bandwidth between it and the CPU.Reply -
JoeArchitect Very interesting article and a great read. Thanks, Chris - I hope to see more like this soon!Reply -
Eggz This makes me excited for X99! With 40 (or more) lanes, of PCI-e (probably more), there will be no need to compromise. We have to remember that the Z97 Chipset is a consumer-grade product, so there almost has to be tradoffs in order to justify stepping up to a high-end platform.Reply
That said, I feel like X99, NVMe, and and M.2 products will coincide nicely with their respective releases dates. Another interesting piece to the puzzle will be DDR4. Will the new storage technology and next-generation CPUs utilize it's speed, or like DD3, will it take several generations for other technologies to catch up to RAM speeds? This is quite an interesting time :) -
Amdlova Chris test the asrock z97 itx... and another thing... my last 3 motherboard from asrock and i want to say Asrock Rock's!Reply -
Damn_Rookie While storage isn't the most important area of computer hardware for me, I always enjoy reading Christopher's articles. Very well written, detail orientated, and above all else, interesting. Thanks!Reply -
hotwire_downunder ASRock has come along way, I used them a long time back with disappointing results, but I have started to use them again and have not been disappointed this time around.Reply
Way to turn things around ASRock! Cheap as chips and rock steady! -
alidan @aminebouhafs if i remember right, didn't toms show how much performance loss there is when you tape gpu cards to emulate having half or even a quarter of the bandwidth? if i remember right back than the difference was only about 12% from 16 lanes down to either 4 or 8Reply -
Eggz 13445787 said:@aminebouhafs if i remember right, didn't toms show how much performance loss there is when you tape gpu cards to emulate having half or even a quarter of the bandwidth? if i remember right back than the difference was only about 12% from 16 lanes down to either 4 or 8
PCI-e 3.0 x8 has enough bandwidth for any single card. The only downside to using PCI-e lanes on the SSD applies only to people who want to use multiple GPUs.
Still, though, this is just the mid-range platform anyway. People looking for lots of expansion end up buying the X chipsets rather than the Z chipsets because of the greater expandability. I feel like the complaint is really misplaced for Z chipsets, since they only have 16 PCI-e lanes to begin with. -
cryan Once an SSD in plugged into the Ultra M.2 slot, the bandwidth between central processing unit and graphics processing unit is cut-down by half. Therefore, while the end-user gets additional SSD performance, the end-user may lose some GPU performance because of insufficient bandwidth between it and the CPU.
Well, it'll definitely negate some GPU configurations, same as any PCIe add-in over the CPU's lanes. With so few lanes to work with on Intel's mainstream platforms, butting heads is inevitable.
Regards,
Christopher Ryan