Being the world’s largest maker of motherboards and one of the world’s largest producers of PC hardware in general, Asus supplies almost everything imaginable, from humble mouse mats to large-format displays. But there are a few things that are missing in Asus’s portfolio; among them are solid-state drives. But it looks like the company will fill this gap real soon.

The company posted a teaser with its ROG Strix SQ7 drive over on its Taiwanese Facebook page on Saturday, just weeks ahead of the looming Computex 2022 trade show. The ROG Strix SQ7 will contend with the best SSDs today.

The teaser does not mention detailed technical specifications of the product but only says that this is a 1TB M.2-2280 drive with a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface that is ‘coming soon.’ Additionally, the drive comes with a simplistic graphene heat spreader to fit into desktops, laptops, and potentially the Sony's latest PlayStation 5 console.

The rather simplistic graphene heat spreader is not an indicator of anything. It can hide a modest mid-range turnkey SSD solution or a custom high-performance drive with a proprietary controller and firmware (Samsung’s top-of-the-range 980 Pro client SSD comes with a graphene heat spreader, for example). Given that this is Asus’s first hooray into internal SSDs, we believe it is reasonable to assume that the company is using a turnkey solution, yet with some customizations to justify the Asus ROG branding. Meanwhile, a 1TB capacity indicates that Asus wants to address the sweet spot of the gaming SSD market.

Virtually all leading gaming hardware makers (Gigabyte, MSI, to name a few) started to offer SSDs in recent years. Of course, it is a risky business as SSD costs and prices fluctuate because of fluctuating 3D NAND prices, and competition is cutthroat. Still, you get a steady revenue stream from loyal customers and additional exposure to your brand as a reward.

Enthusiasts who buy leading-edge hardware, such as platforms based on Intel’s 12th Generation Alder Lake processors, eagerly await SSDs with a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface. Unfortunately, these SSD platforms will not be ready for prime time for some time, so Asus is proceeding with a PCIe Gen4 drive. After all, the first product is always a test, so why not go with a proven platform?

When you think of ECC (error correction code) memory, Kingston, Samsung, or Crucial are probably the first brands that cross your mind. There's an overabundance of memory vendors, but very few do business in the ECC market. Some may not know it, but Mushkin is one of the handful of companies that commercialize ECC memory kits, and it has some pretty good ones.

Mushkin advertises the Redline ECC Black DDR4-3600 as the world's first overclocked ECC memory kit, and that is true. However, ECC memory isn't prevalent outside the enterprise market, and manufacturers generally stick to JEDEC specifications, such as DDR4-2133, or some vendors even go up to DDR4-3200. Therefore, a DDR4-3600 ECC memory kit is undoubtedly a configuration you don't often see on the memory market. It does come in handy, though, given that AMD's Ryzen has always supported ECC and Intel has unlocked ECC memory support for its mainstream Alder Lake processors (provided you use a motherboard with the W680 chipset).

The Redline ECC memory modules come with a green PCB, which might be a letdown for some enthusiasts. Given that ECC memory primarily dwells in servers and workstations, the color of the PCB shouldn't be an issue for the majority of customers. However, a black PCB could have gone a long way with potential mainstream buyers looking to take advantage of Alder Lake or Ryzen's support for ECC memory. The Redline ECC checks in with a height of 38mm (1.5 inches), so it's friendly with most oversized CPU air coolers.

Mushkin equipped the Redline ECC with a lightweight aluminum heat spreader, which the brand calls Frostbyte. Unlike the company's other memory, the Redline ECC only comes in black or white. In addition, the heat spreader's top resembles a double helix, which looks pretty cool.

The Redline ECC Black arrives as a dual-channel memory kit with two 16GB memory modules. Each memory module has an eight-layer PCB and adheres to a single-rank design. Although Thaiphoon Burner couldn't pick up the integrated circuits (ICs) manufacturer, we suspect they're from Micron, given the single-rank structure and loose timings.

The memory modules run at DDR4-2666 at 19-19-19-43 natively. However, the XMP profile will configure them for DDR4-3600 with 16-19-19-39 timings and a 1.4V DRAM voltage. The required voltage is a bit high considering that there are DDR4-3600 memory kits with better timings at 1.35V. See our PC Memory 101 feature and How to Shop for RAM story for more on timings and frequency considerations.

Comparison Hardware

The Intel system employs the Intel Core i9-10900K and Asus ROG Maximus XII Apex, which operates on the 0901 firmware. On the opposite side, the AMD system consists of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and the Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Dark Hero. The latter is on the 3501 firmware. The MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming Trio ensures no bottlenecks in our gaming RAM benchmarks.

Intel Performance

The Redline ECC Black ended up in the middle of the Intel application performance chart. The memory flaunted its muscle in the Microsoft Office workload. We doubt there will be widespread use of ECC memory in gaming systems. Nonetheless, the memory surprised us as it managed to take fourth place overall in our gaming benchmarks. 

AMD Performance

The AMD platform turned out to be the Redline ECC Black's Achilles heel. We observed a decline in overall application performance that found Mushkin's memory in the penultimate position. The memory kit didn't shine in any specific workload, either. Gaming performance was a tad worse than on the Intel platform.

Overclocking and Latency Tuning

It was hard to squeeze a hefty overclock out of the Redline ECC Black since the XMP voltage was already at 1.4V. However, upping the DRAM voltage to 1.45V quickly put us at DDR4-3800 with the exact rated timings for DDR4-3600.

Lowest Stable Timings

Being Micron ICs, we couldn't get the timings very low, even at 1.45V. We got the tRCD, tRP, and tRAS as low as 18-18-38 before the memory became unstable. The CAS Latency remained at 16 clock cycles.

Bottom Line

Mushkin used a single-rank design for the Redline ECC Black DDR4-3600 C16 memory modules, which affects the memory's performance on the Intel platform and has an even bigger impact on the AMD platform. It's a shame because the memory would have performed better if Mushkin had opted for a dual-rank structure. As a result, the Redline ECC Black DDR4-3600 C16 kit cannot compete against enthusiast-grade memory kits like the G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 C16.

Mushkin's memory kit currently retails for $236.50. Yes, it's a bit more expensive than your standard DDR4-3600 C16 memory kit, and we expected that since it's ECC memory, after all. However, the Redline ECC Black DDR4-3600 C16 certainly has a spot in the market, offering enthusiasts an ECC option that's better than the standard ECC memory at DDR4-2133 or DDR4-2666 with sloppy timings.

Mushkin is an American company known for its memory products, including DRAM and SSDs, USB flash drives, and memory cards. Outside of the realm of enthusiasts, most of their existing drives aren't particularly well-known, though the Pilot-E was a popular choice at 2TB for some time because it traded blows with ADATA’s SX8200 Pro and the popular HP EX950. Mushkin’s upcoming Vortex also looks promising. 

As the naming convention suggests, the Mushkin Delta sits beside its Alpha and Gamma lines. All three use Phison SSD controllers, a popular source for controllers, with the Alpha using the popular E12S, the Delta coming with the faster E16, and the Gamma coming with the fastest E18. The Alpha and Delta use QLC flash that trades off endurance and performance for better capacity and cost, while the Gamma comes with TLC flash that's typically the faster alternative.

Phison was an early adopter of the PCIe 4.0 interface for AMD’s X570 chipset launch, and the E16 has found popularity recently. Prices for E16-powered SSDs have come down, and these drives have found new life as a suitable budget choice for the PlayStation 5, even when coupled with QLC flash. Many drives share this hardware, so if you’re someone who may be tempted to grab something similar, consider this more of a blanket review.

Specifications

The Mushkin Delta is rated for up to 4,975/3,975 MBps of sequential read/write throughput and up to 700K/650K random read/write IOPS. The drive comes in 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB flavors, which is unsurprising as this drive is based on QLC flash. Availability for this drive is hit and miss at the moment, but you can find the smaller SKUs at around $0.12 a gigabyte. The 4TB’s MSRP is also around this range. Unfortunately, this price is higher than some competing products.

Endurance is also fairly typical for QLC flash — the drive can absorb 200 TB of data per TB of capacity. Most users will probably not write this much data, but the ratings are low for those expecting the typically high endurance that comes with Phison controllers. It’s nice to see a five-year warranty, though. Of course, drives from competitors should share these characteristics, so this is simply a baseline.

Software and Accessories

This drive comes packaged alone. You'll need to use free software to clone your existing drive.

A Closer Look

The Mushkin Delta has a somewhat attractive top label, if that’s your thing, and the back one lists basic information such as the model number and capacity.

Here we have the venerable Phison PS5016-E16, or E16, SSD controller, which is ostensibly a mid-range PCIe 4.0 design. This controller leverages eight channels and supports DRAM. Entry-level designs will usually lack DRAM and have lower performance in sequential workloads due to the quad-channel design, while the higher-end options can push the interface's limits.

The SK hynix DDR4 DRAM is labeled H5AN4G8NBJR. The “4G8N” tells us these are 4Gb packages in an 8-bit configuration (512MB). As there is another package on the back, the total DRAM capacity weighs in at 1GB. This is surprisingly ample and good to see.

The flash is labeled IA5BG66AWA, so it's 96-layer Micron QLC. These are 1Tb dies, meaning the drive has two per package. So the drive has two packages on each side, for a total of four. This QLC was a bit of a last hurrah for Intel and Micron’s cooperation, and we’re beginning to see better QLC from all manufacturers, for example, Intel’s 144-layer flash in the 670p. We will see 176-layer QLC this year from Micron and Solidigm (Intel's newly-sold SSD business). 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We compare the Mushkin Delta 1TB to other popular PCIe 4.0 drives, including Western Digital’s SN770 and SN850, Samsung’s 980 Pro, Crucial’s P5 Plus, the Corsair MP600 Pro, the original Sabrent Rocket 4.0 Plus, and lastly, the MSI Spatium M470. These are drives based on TLC flash, but we do have the DRAM-less SN770. In addition, the M470 uses the E16 SSD controller like the Delta, albeit with TLC flash.

Trace Testing - 3DMark Storage Benchmark

Built for gamers, 3DMark’s Storage Benchmark focuses on real-world gaming performance. Each round in this benchmark stresses storage based on gaming activities, including loading games, saving progress, installing game files, and recording gameplay video streams.

Unsurprisingly, the Delta finished last in all of the 3DMark tests. Of particular note is the higher latency, which is hard to avoid with this QLC flash.

Trace Testing – PCMark 10 Storage Benchmark

PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that uses a wide-ranging set of real-world traces from popular applications and everyday tasks to measure the performance of storage devices.

The Delta scores poorly again, particularly in latency metrics. Phison’s controllers have good peak performance but can do worse in PCMark than others, as we see with the M470, Rocket 4.0 Plus, and MP600 Pro (the latter two come with the E18 SSD controller).

Transfer Rates – DiskBench

We use the DiskBench storage benchmarking tool to test file transfer performance with a custom 50GB dataset. We copy 31,227 files of various types, such as pictures, PDFs, and videos to a new folder and then follow up with a reading test of a newly-written 6.5GB zip file.

This bandwidth-limited benchmark inevitably has the Delta falling behind, although it gets close to the M470 during read workloads as it hits the limitations of the controller. This type of performance is not too important, even with the PS5, but it is useful for those who do a lot of file transfers. Sequential performance may be more useful for DirectStorage when it goes mainstream, but it’s likely better drives will exist by then with better all-around specifications.

Synthetic Testing - ATTO / CrystalDiskMark

ATTO and CrystalDiskMark (CDM) are free and easy-to-use storage benchmarking tools that SSD vendors commonly use to assign performance specifications to their products. Both of these tools give us insight into how each device handles different file sizes.

The E18 SSD controller really takes off here in ATTO and reaches its peak performance. Additionally, we see the DRAM-less SN770 finally falling behind. The Delta is in-line with the M470 but falls behind faster PCIe 4.0 drives. The Delta’s sequential performance in Crystal Disk Mark leaves much to be desired, but this is largely a limitation of the controller during read workloads where it comes close to the M470 and SN770 at higher queue depths (WD). The QLC drive struggles more with write data.

Latency during random work is actually not bad, although these drives do rely on a pSLC mode for write workloads. The QLC is overwhelmed at high QD with write data and also with read requests. QLC flash inherently reads slower than TLC, although Intel pioneered many mechanisms to improve read performance starting with this generation. Future generations of QLC, including Intel’s existing 144-layer flash, have further improvements. Still, the M470’s results expose some of the E16 controller's limitations.

High QD read performance may become more important as DirectStorage matures, although likely with block sizes larger than 4KB. However, sustained reads may also become more useful, which would make upcoming QLC (144- or 176-layer and up from the major manufacturers) a better choice than this. This is because while QLC's sustained write performance has remained feeble, the various flash makers are pushing improvements to independent read performance.

Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSDs 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.

The Mushkin Delta 1TB writes at a maximum speed of around 2 GBps for approximately 125 seconds, suggesting a cache capacity of about 250GB. This behavior suggests the drive uses all of its QLC capacity in SLC mode, thus reducing the overall capacity to one-fourth the normal. After that, speeds fall below 130 MBps. The slow folding state is forced into action because the drive must free up and convert SLC to QLC to regain the necessary capacity.

These slow write speeds in sustained workloads are not unusual with QLC drives and, further, drives with very large SLC caches also tend to have lower performance in sustained workloads. The Delta will not do well with this type of workload, especially when it is fuller and the dynamic SLC cache shrinks. Luckily, this is not super important for read-heavy gaming workloads or general use. As we see on other E16 drives like the M470, the cache recovers relatively quickly.

Power Consumption and Temperature

We use the Quarch HD Programmable Power Module to gain a deeper understanding of power characteristics. Idle power consumption is an important aspect to consider, especially if you're looking for a laptop upgrade, as even the best ultrabooks can have mediocre storage.

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, ultimately saving energy.

We also monitor the drive’s temperature via the S.M.A.R.T. data and an IR thermometer to see when (or if) thermal throttling kicks in and how it impacts performance. Remember that results will vary based on the workload and ambient air temperature.

The Delta is not particularly efficient, which is understandable because it takes longer to complete a transfer. The E16 SSD controller is also somewhat to blame (as we see with the M470’s results), but the QLC also holds this drive back.

According to the SMART reading, the Delta idled at 42C and peaked at 65C. In contrast, the temperature gun measured these higher at 53C and 85C, respectively. The drive did not fully throttle during a 400GB data transfer, but it appeared to be pushing the edge. This drive is not meant for sustained write workloads, so it shouldn't throttle under normal circumstances. However, a heatsink is a good general recommendation for a PCIe 4.0 SSD.

Test Bench and Testing Notes

We use a Rocket Lake platform with most background applications such as indexing, windows updates, and anti-virus disabled in the OS to reduce run-to-run variability. Each SSD is prefilled to 50% capacity and tested as a secondary device. Unless noted, we use active cooling for all SSDs.

Conclusion

The Phison E16 controller was an early consumer PCIe 4.0 design that arrived a bit too expensive. Over time, PCIe 4.0-capable motherboards have become more available, and many more manufacturers have jumped aboard the PCIe 4.0 train. We now have newer, faster controllers in smaller process nodes and better flash. Even the newer DRAM-less designs have proved to be beyond adequate for almost all users.

However, drives built around the E16 have become popular as prices have decreased. The PS5 works adequately with such a drive in its SSD expansion slot, making the E16 a budget option there as well. Even when paired with QLC flash, the E15 controller can deliver up to 5 GBps of sequential read throughput at 2TB. This makes the combination attractive as read throughput is the most important factor for the PS5, and, ostensibly, QLC flash is cheaper than TLC. However, 96-layer QLC must inevitably fade into the distance as newer types of flash arrive.

The combination of the E16 with this QLC flash does tend to disappoint, particularly at 1TB. Other PCIe 4.0 drives outperform it in just about every metric, especially during write workloads. Capacity can be attractive, but the 4TB SKU is hard to find, and the competition is stiff otherwise. Although pricing for PCIe 4.0 drives has come down, it’s hard to recommend the Delta over even halfway decent PCIe 3.0 drives unless you need that peak bandwidth. The Gamma's simple design is a plus, though, as this technology is mature and straightforward.

Nevertheless, the E16 is not a bad controller, and the presence of DRAM lifts it above many of the other older options. The flash is better than earlier 64-layer QLC, and, quite frankly, we don’t see 96-layer generational QLC from other manufacturers outside of Samsung’s 870 QVO. The E16's robust SLC caching scheme means most people may never know the difference between other, faster drives. This really just leaves the Delta, or a similar competitor drive, with some niche use for the PS5 if and when it can be found cheap enough.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Mushkin has introduced its new high-performance lineup of SSDs aimed at gamers and other performance-hungry users. The new Vortex Redline drives not only offer an up to 7415 MB/s sequential read speed (which makes it one of the industry's fastest PCIe 4.0 x4 drives capable of competing against the best SSDs available), but also come with a slim graphene heat spreader that allow installation of these devices into laptops. 

That rated speed compares favorably with the 7,000 MBps sequential rates for popular PCIe 4.0 SSDs such as the Samsung 980 Pro and Kingston KC3000. Of course, we'll have to see how it stacks up in real-world testing.

Set to be available in 512GB, 1TB, and 2TB configurations, Mushkin's Vortex Redline is based on the InnoGrit Rainer IG5236 controller (multi-core, NVMe 1.4, eight NAND channels, up to 1200 MT/s NAND interface, 3W, 12nm) paired with 3D TLC NAND memory. The drives come in an M.2-2280 form-factor, feature a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, and are equipped with an ultra-thin graphene heat spreader.  

When it comes to performance, Mushkin's engineers have managed to squeeze every bit of performance promised by the InnoGrit IG5236 controller and then some. Mushkin's Vortex Redline 2TB SSD is rated for up to 7415 MB/s sequential read speed, up to 6800 MB/s sequential write speed, 730K random read IOPS, and up to 1,130K random write IOPS. Lower capacity drives are somewhat slower, but are also very fast.  

Mushkin's Vortex Redline SSDs

As for endurance, not everything is that rosy. The drives are designed for 0.26 ~ 0.27 drive writes per day (DWPD) over a five-year warranty period, which is in line with inexpensive SSDs, but which is lower when compared to other premium solid-state storage devices. 

Some might argue that Mushkin is a bit late with its top-of-the-range PCIe 4.0 x4 drives as owners of Intel's Alder Lake-based systems are either waiting for SSDs with a PCIe 5.0 x4 interface or have already acquired a premium PCIe Gen4 SSD. For obvious reasons, Mushkin would probably have liked to introduce its Vortex Redline earlier, but enthusiast-grade PCIe Gen5 drives are months away (some expect them to arrive in Q3, other talk about Q4), so enthusiasts building AMD-based AM4 and Intel-powered LGA1700 systems today could certainly use Mushkin's drives that promise higher performance than competing solutions. 

Perhaps the sweetest part about Mushkin's Vortex Redline SSDs is their pricing: a 512GB model carries a $77.89 MSRP, whereas a 1TB SKU has a recommended price of $124.99, reports TechPowerUp. Both MSRPs are lower when compared to Samsung's 980 Pro SSDs.

Mushkin has been away from the memory game for a while, but the company is back with a new series of Redline Lumina RGB DDR4 memory kits designed and optimized for the most up-to-date Intel and AMD platforms.

The Redline Lumina RGB memory arrives with an aluminum heat spreader that's complemented with snazzy RGB lighting. The light bar features 16 high-quality RGB LEDs to provide vivid and smooth illumination. Like many modern memory kits, Redline Lumina RGB is ready to integrate itself into the majority of motherboard RGB ecosystems, including Asus Aura Sync, MSI Mystic Light Sync, and ASRock Polychrome.

Mushkin offers the Redline Lumina RGB in dual-channel packages in three different densities. You can choose from 16GB (2X8GB), 32GB (2X16GB) or 64GB (2X32GB) configurations.

Mushkin has all its bases covered on the performance front. The Redline Lumina RGB starts at DDR4-2666 data rate and extends up to DDR4-4133. The timings are not bad either, with CAS Latency (CL) values spanning from CL16 to CL19. The Redline Lumina RGB stays within specification at all times, regardless of the memory frequency. The DRAM voltage varies from 1.2V to 1.35V.

Equipped with Intel XMP 2.0 support, Redline Lumina RGB memory kits take the hassle out of setup. With the click of a button (or at least the enabling of a preset), you can get the memory kits up to their advertised memory frequency in a jiffy. The company says all Redline Lumina RGB memory kits are thoroughly hand-tested in North America. Confident of their quality, Mushkin backs every Redline Lumina RGB memory kit with a limited lifetime warranty.

You can already find the Redline Lumina at Newegg. The 16GB and 32GB memory kits start at $96.99 and $179.99, respectively, while the 64GB memory kits sell for $324.99.

With many of the most recent crop of games exceeding 100GB in size, adding more storage to complement your OS drive is quickly becoming a necessity. And in the world of SATA SSD storage, nothing really comes as close to providing as much value for money as this deal we've found.

Over on Newegg for today only, you can grab a Mushkin Enhanced RAW series 1TB SSD for just $81.99 — that is 25% off the list price and brings the cost down to only $0.082 per GB.

• More: Best Deals on SSDs and Hard Drives
• Best External Drives: Portable Hard Drives and SSDs

Sporting a standard 2.5-inch form factor, this drive will fit with ease into your setup and utilizes 3D TLC, rather than less-durable QLC found in many modern budget drives.

Beyond this, you find some other more premium technologies built-in, such as LDPC ECC, Static Data Refresh and internal flash RAID.

And that lower price doesn't mean a compromise in speed. Tested using CrystalDiskMark 6.0.2 x64, this drive is capable of hitting sequential speeds up to 560 MBps read and 520 MBps write.

It may not be the greatest SSD in the market today, but at this kind of price, it provides a great bang for your storage buck. Want to explore the market? Check out our best deals on SSDs and hard drives hub.

There are tons of deals on tech right now as the holiday season approaches, and we're working around the clock to find you the best offers.

Today, we're highlighting a Newegg deal on this Mushkin 500GB internal SSD. You can find plenty of deals on SSDs in our master SSD sales page. Be sure to check back every day for updates, and if deals aren't your concern, visit our best SSDs page to see our top picks.

This model has read/write speeds as high as 560/510 MBps. It's designed to provide end-to-end data protection while featuring internal flash RAID and StaticDataRefresh.

This is a 2.5" drive, so you will need a SATA III interface to connect. This drive also supports both TRIM and S.M.A.R.T. commands.

Visit the Mushkin RAW 500GB product page on the Newegg website to get this deal. It's set to expire in less than 24 hours. If you need more storage, the 1TB version of this drive is also on sale for $90 (down from $110).

Like its bigger brother the KC2000, Kingston's new A2000 uses a Silicon Motion controller and Micron’s 96L TLC flash. However, the SSDs' controller limits performance to about 2.2/2.0 GBps read/write, which results in lower pricing. The drive still performs well, has a long warranty, and also features heavy-duty hardware encryption options that also offset the more conservative performance specifications.

The combination of features makes Kingston’s A2000 a formidable entry-level M.2 NVMe SSD. With a four-channel Silicon Motion SM2263EN PCIe NVMe controller and Micron’s latest 96L TLC powering it, it has got a lot of fight in it. Need to load up your favorite games fast? Easy. Want to host multiple virtual machines? Not a problem. Edit high bit-rate video? It should be a piece of cake with the A2000.

The A2000 is also a great pick if you have sensitive data and want to upgrade your business laptop. The self-encrypting drive supports 256-bit XTS-AES hardware-based encryption at the controller level, so you can password-protect your data with no performance loss. And, with TCG Opal 2.0 support, you can manage the security with Symantec, McAfee, WinMagic, and other business-class security software. As a byproduct of its eDrive support, it also supports BitLocker.

Specifications

Kingston’s A2000 is available in mainstream capacities that stretch from 250GB up to 1TB. MSRPs come in at $39.99, $59.99, and $99.99, respectfully. If you need a larger drive, you should look into the KC2000 as an alternative. 

Kingston rates the A2000 for up to 2.2/2.0 GBps of read/write throughput, and it can dish out 250,000 / 220,000 of random read/write IOPS, too. It comes with high-end endurance ratings that match both the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and WD Black SN750. And, like them, it comes with a 5-year warranty.

Feature-wise, other than the AES 256-bit encryption, the drive has a pseudo-SLC write cache that absorbs inbound writes. It supports TRIM, S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, and you can secure erase it (Format NVM) to ensure your data is completely gone when you sell it, or to restore performance if the drive gets into a degraded state.

Software and Accessories

Except for a serial key for Acronis True Image HD, Kingston doesn’t include any accessories in the package. You can use True Image to easily migrate your existing data from your old drive to your new one. Kingston's SSD Manager toolbox also comes with your purchase. It allows you to manage the security features, adjust overprovisioning, update firmware, secure erase, or just monitor your drive.

A Closer Look

Kingston’s A2000 is an M.2 2280, single-sided form factor SSD. This makes upgrading almost any M.2-based system an easy task without any clearance issues.

Unlike classier M.2 drives, the A2000 lacks a black PCB. Instead, it is a dull blue. Like the KC2000, the white sticker over top of the drive detracts even more from the aesthetics, as it is just plain ugly.

However, the underlying components are anything but. Kingston outfitted the A2000 with Silicon Motion’s SM2263EN, a PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3 controller, and the company paired it with four packages of Micron’s 96L TLC flash. The SM2263EN supports a DRAM cache for more consistent performance over its DRAMless counterpart (SM2263XT). Kingston slapped on one of its own branded DDR4 NAND ICs for the task.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

We included the Intel SSD 660p (SM2263EN + Micron 64L QLC), Mushkin Helix-L (SM2253XT + Micron 64L TLC), Adata XPG SX6000 Pro (Realtek RTS5763DL + Micron 64L TLC), and Crucial’s SATA MX500 (SM2258 + Micron 64L TLC) in our test pool. Additionally, we included the Mushkin Pilot-E (SM2262EN + Micron 64L TLC) and Corsair Force MP510 (Phison E12 + Kioxia 64L TLC) as more costly alternatives. We also threw in a 6TB WD Black, a 7200-RPM HDD, for good measure. 

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 Kingston A2000 delivers leading-edge game load performance. With a total load time of 18.80 seconds, Kingston’s A2000 took first place, leading even the Mushkin Pilot-E.

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.

During our file transfer tests, the A2000 delivered similar performance to other entry-level NVMe SSDs. It averaged 501 MBps when copying the 50GB test folder, outperforming the HDD by five times. It also read back the 6.5GB file at 1.5 GBps, ranking fourth overall in read performance.     

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.

Kingston’s A2000 did amazingly well in PCMark 8. With a score of 5,103 points and an average bandwidth of 708 MBps, it scores second place, landing ever-so-slightly behind the Corsair Force MP510. 

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.

The Kingston A2000 completed the benchmark in just over 40 minutes and placed third overall. It scored more closely to the Pilot-E and Force MP510 than its entry-level competitors.  The drive certainly stands out if you're looking for consistent performance.

Synthetic Testing - 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. We tested at the default queue depth value of 4.

ATTO reaffirms the A2000’s official sequential performance specifications. The drive hit 2,200 MBps read, and actually broke the spec for write performance with a peak of 2,200 MBps.

Synthetic Testing - iometer

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

Kingston’s A2000 peaked at 2,281/2,212 MBps in sequential read/write throughput. Random performance at QD (queue depth) 1-4 was also very responsive. Surprisingly, the DRAMless Mushkin Helix-L is a bit more responsive and was able to deliver slightly faster synthetic read results. The A2000’s random performance peaked at 184,000/267,000 read/write IOPS.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement a pseudo-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 pSLC 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 pSLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

As mentioned, the Kingston A2000 features a pSLC write cache. The drive can absorb about 165GB of writes before performance degrades from 2,200 MBps down to roughly 490 MBps.

It is also worth noting the very consistent write pattern after write performance degrades. This is significantly better than the performance the DRAMless Mushkin Helix-L. The A2000 also wrote significantly more data during the test, too.

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 A2000 ranks in the middle of the pack when it comes to efficiency during the file transfer workload. The A2000's onboard DRAM causes the A2000 to have higher power consumption than the Helix-L, hence the lower efficiency score even though both averaged similar speeds.

When at idle, the A2000 consumed just 12mW when ASPM is enabled, and a little over 600mW when we disabled the feature. So, it is still a good upgrade choice for your next laptop or efficient small form factor PC. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

The A2000's AES 256-bit hardware encryption helps keep your data secure and safe from prying eyes. Not only is the drive secure, but it is also impressively fast. 

Opting for Silicon Motion’s SM2263EN and pairing it with Micron’s 96L TLC proved to be a wise decision for Kingston. Time and time again, the A2000 delivered speeds that were significantly better than an HDD, and some of its SSD competitors, too. 

Compared to the WD Black HDD, the A2000 scored an average bandwidth that was 47 times greater in PCMark 8, 13 times higher in SPECworkstation 3, and was five to seven times faster during file transfers. If you aren’t been convinced yet, these scores should provide enough reason to upgrade to an A2000 or similar if you haven’t done so already.

Best of all, the A2000 ranked as the fastest SSD in the group when loading Final Fantasy's game scenes, making it a great value for gamers. But if you care about aesthetics, it may stick out like a sore thumb if you don’t place it under a heatsink. That is not to say it needs one, however. During our tests, the A2000's temperatures were well-managed. Even when running multiple 50-100GB transfers simultaneously, temps stayed below 60C with little airflow in our 25C environment.   

Kingston’s A2000 is a well-rounded NVMe SSD overall. Whether you are a business class user, prosumer, or just someone looking to outfit their new build with some speedy storage, the A2000 is a great choice. With competitive pricing, high endurance and five-year warranty to match, the drive ranks among the top value picks.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Mushkin’s Helix-L is an entry-level SSD through and through. It’s pretty cheap, comes with a 3-year warranty, and it features a DRAMless controller architecture. Even so, it can still deliver a more-than-acceptable level of performance for gamers and mainstream users alike.

Mushkin’s Helix-L is marketed toward budget-conscious gamers with its DNA theme and pricing -- the 1TB model sells for just $107.  It's powered by Silicon Motion’s SM2263XT PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe SSD controller, and our sample features Micron’s 64L TLC NAND flash. This combo lacks DRAM, but resourcefully utilizes Host Memory Buffer, a feature of the NVMe protocol to aid performance instead.

This feature uses a tiny 64MB portion of the host’s DRAM to cache the SSD’s FTL mapping table for better performance than without it. It’s a big improvement over non-HMB designs and can help deliver surprisingly good performance in various tasks.

Specifications

Mushkin’s Helix-L is rated for speeds of up to 2.1 GBps read and 1.7 GBps write at the highest (1TB) capacity. The performance takes a slight hit when looking at the 250GB model though. That model is only rated to 2 GBps read and 1.25 GBps write. Still, that’s much higher than any SATA SSD. Random 4K performance is rated for up to 240,000 / 260,000 read / write IOPS. The 250GB model again is rated just slightly lower, at up to 200,000 IOPS read.

The warranty length is a rather standard at just 3-years, but the drive has endurance figures that match both the Samsung 970 EVO and WD Black SN750. As well, it comes with the standard support for TRIM (via NVM Deallocate), S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, secure erase via the Format NVM command.

Mushkin doesn’t provide the end-user an SSD Toolbox for support. But as nice as that feature is to have, it's not really a necessity. There is plenty of freeware that can cover mainstream cloning and monitoring needs. You do get a Mushkin Enhanced case sticker in the box, however.

A Closer Look

The Mushkin Helix-L is an M.2 2280 form factor SSD that comes either a single- or double-sided, depending on your luck of the draw. Our sample was single-sided and utilizes Micron’s 64L TLC to deliver responsive performance.

Aesthetically, the Helix-L features a black PCB. The DNA sticker on top of the drive is more attractive than most we've seen on M.2 SSDs, but drives with heatsinks usually look better.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

Today, we're putting the Mushkin Helix-L up against several competing drives, from budget-focused to mainstream performers. These include the higher-end Mushkin Pilot-E (SM2262EN + Micron 64L TLC) and Corsair Force MP510 (Phison E12 + Kioxia 64L TLC). We also added in the mainstream Intel SSD 660p (SM2263EN + Micron 64L QLC), Adata XPG SX6000 Pro (Realtek RTS5763DL + Micron 64L TLC), and Kingston A2000 (SM2263EN + Micron 96L TLC). Finally, we threw in a Crucial’s MX500 (SM2258 + Micron 64L TLC), a SATA SSD, and added in a 6TB WD Black, a 7200 RPM HDD, for extra perspective. 

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.

Silicon Motion based SSDs dominate the game load test, although, it is only by a second or two at most. With a total load time of 19.64 seconds, the Helix-L scores third place overall and delivers a load time that is much faster than the 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 reading test of a newly-written 6.5 GB file.

Mushkin’s Helix-L did surprisingly well during our 50GB folder transfer. With an average throughput of 526 MBps, it even outscored the Kingston A2000, which features a DRAM-based architecture. Still, it couldn’t compete against the Mushkin Pilot-E, which was significantly faster.

During reading a 6.5GB test file back, read performance came in at 1,437 MBps, ranking it fifth overall, and just behind that of the A2000. Both the Mushkin Pilot-E and Corsair Force MP510, with their increased bandwidth, outperform the Helix-L. 

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.

Scoring 5,066 points, the Helix-L lands in fifth place here, just behind the Intel SSD 660P and ahead of the Adata XPG SX6000 Pro. It significantly outperforms the HDD under consumer workloads and delivers double the performance of a SATA SSD on this test.

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.

Once we put it under a heavier workload, the DRAMless architecture shows its limitations. Like the Adata XPG SX6000 Pro and Intel SSD 660p, the Helix-L didn’t do too well here. The Corsair Force MP510 and Mushkin Pilot-E both wrap up the test in about 30 minutes and the Kingston A2000 took 40 minutes. The Helix-L, however, took a little over an hour to complete the test. Still, that's much better than the 5 hours and 38 minutes the hard drive took.

Synthetic Testing - 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. We tested at the default queue depth value of 4.

In ATTO, Mushkin’s Helix-L delivered similar performance to that of the Intel 660P and Adataa SX6000 Pro, hitting 2.1 / 1.7 GBps read/write. The Kingston A2000 scored slightly better, however.

Synthetic Testing - iometer

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

In iometer, like in ATTO, the Mushkin Helix-L hit 2.1/1.7 GBps read/write which is average for an entry-level SSD. Random performance at low QDs was also very respectable with results that ranks it near the top of the charts. It also significantly outperforms any HDD or SATA device.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement a pseudo-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 pSLC 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 pSLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

Helix-L’s architecture features an SLC write cache. In testing, we measured our 1TB sample’s SLC cache to be about 137GB in size. After writing to the cache for 81 seconds at just under 1,700MBps, write performance degraded to a very inconsistent average of 280MBps. After 15 minutes of writes,, the Helix-L ranks sixth overall with a total of 367GB written, almost 100GB less than that of the Crucial MX500.

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.

While the Mushkin Helix-L isn’t a victor in most tests, it takes the win when it comes to efficiency. Overall, the Helix-L scores first place with an efficiency score of 245 MBps per watt. Maximum and average power consumption was also the lowest in the group at just 3.72W and 2.15W, respectfully. And at idle, the power consumption dropped to 175mW with ASPM enabled, or 520mW when disabled.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

It’s strange to look at all the high-performance NVMe SSDs out there and think that SATA used to be the limit. Even the cheapest NVMe SSDs are significantly faster than what the SATA 6Gbps interface can deliver. As an entry-level NVMe SSD, Mushkin’s Helix-L is a solid option.  

While it features a DRAMless architecture, Silicon Motion’s latest firmware and the new HMB feature seems to provide ample performance in most consumer workloads. Silicon Motion optimized 4K QD1 access on this controller config. When gaming, we saw load times that were up there with the best SSDs. When transferring files around, it even copied at a faster rate than the Kingston A2000, which features DRAM, while being much more power-efficient than that drive.

It's only when the Helix-L is stressed with heavy writes that it lags behind that of a SATA based SSD, though not by too much. When writing constantly to the device, it can absorb upwards of 137GB of data before it falls into a degraded state. Even then, write performance is significantly better than the Intel SSD 660p.

Overall, Mushkin’s Helix-L is a decent buy for those looking to save money while still getting a taste of NVMe speeds. It’s priced to sell and has a 3-year warranty. Although it lacks any software or accessories, with competitive prices and Samsung 970 EVO Plus-like endurance, the Helix-L offers a lot of bang for the buck.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Some of our memory recommendations from last year are of the market, but the locked versions of Intel’s mainstream platform never went away. B360 and H370-chipset motherboards still limit the firm’s Core i5-and-higher processors to a DDR4-2666 maximum, and using these boards with a Core i3 or lower reduces that limit to a paltry DDR4-2400. This, in an enthusiast market where DDR4-3200 has become mainstream. We can only hope that Intel’s next “locked” mainstream platforms make the leap to higher memory clocks, but until then, those of us who haven’t stepped up to a Z370 or Z390 board still need memory, which brings us to this pair of kits from Mushkin.

Interest in H370- and B360-compatible memory is so low that most of our contacts didn’t even have samples, but Mushkin cared enough about our community that it took the extra time and effort to come up with two kits, its Redline Ridgeback MRA4U266GHHF16GX2 (2x 16GB) and its standard Redline MRA4U266GHHF8GX2 (2x 8GB). Other than the heat spreaders, the only difference between these two is that the 32GB kit populates both sides of each module with 8Gb (eight gigabit) DRAM ICs (chips), while the 16GB kit’s modules have only one populated side. This corresponds to the terms “dual-rank” and “single-rank”, where a “rank” is the collection of ICs that populate one of the module’s two 64-bit interfaces.

Both kits need XMP mode to enable DDR4-2666 data rates at 16-17-17-36 timings, even though neither profile required more than the standard 1.20V. If you figure out after you buy either kit that your CPU doesn’t support this data rate (because it’s not a Core i5 or better), or that your motherboard doesn’t support XMP mode, you’ll be stuck at DDR4-2133 CAS 15. Of course, you can always try configuring your memory manually.

Comparison Hardware

Our recent Ryzen Deep Dive hammered home a point that we’d seen throughout several years of Intel-based reviews: that two ranks per channel have a significant performance advantage over one. Today, we’re comparing Mushkin’s two-by-dual-rank 32GB and two-by-single-rank 16GB kits to G.Skill’s low-cost Ripjaws V and HyperX Gaming’s Predator low-latency kits.

We continue to use our classic benchmark suite with a classic graphics card and lower-priced CPU to better match the B360/H370 target market. Intel’s Core i5-9700K is locked to 4.30 GHz for the ultimate performance consistency, MSI’s classic GTX 1080 Armor OC graphics card sets on its B360M Mortar motherboard, and Toshiba’s OCZ RD400 NVMe SSD reduces load times and any storage bottlenecks.

Lowest Stable Timings at 1.35V (Max) on MSI B360M Mortar BIOS 1.70 (08/08/2019)

Being stuck at DDR4-2666 or lower memory speeds doesn’t mean we can’t at least try for better performance: Bumping the voltage up to 1.35V helped the Mushkin 32GB and 16GB kits remain stable at 13-15-15 and 13-14-14 timings, respectively. Unfortunately, both G.Skill and HyperX Gaming kits undercut the latencies of Mushkin’s 32GB kit.

Benchmark Results

Though it finishes Sandra Memory Bandwidth in third place, the 32GB Mushkin kit is close enough to its rivals to potentially compete for a value award. Mushkin’s 16GB kit fares slightly better against competing 16GB kits.

F1 2015 shows some oddly spectacular results for nitpickers: Both of Mushkin’s kits fell behind rivals at XMP settings, but both also excelled at custom-tuned settings.

Remembering that less task completion time means more performance, we see that Mushkin’s 32GB kit lagged slightly behind its rivals in 7-Zip, and that its 16GB kit beat them in custom tune. Whether or not advantages this small are worth the effort of tuning are up to you, but doing so did shave nearly a minute off a 12-minute encode here.

The surprising part of this evaluation is that the Redline Ridgeback 32GB kit was cheap enough to beat even G.Skill’s value-series Ripjaws V. Just a few dollars difference was enough for the 32GB kit to steal the 32GB value crown.

As for Mushkin’s 16GB kit, it faltered in value to the Ripjaws V. You win some, you lose some. But pricing often shifts, and if the winds of commerce blow in Muskin’s favor, either kit should serve builders or upgraders on Intel’s lesser chipset platforms well.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

Adata’s XPG-branded Gammix S11 Pro NVMe M.2 SSD offers a great mix of aesthetics and performance. At a price of $149.99, the 1TB model we're looking at today comes at a competitive price, considering its ability to deliver speeds of up to 3.5/3.0GB/s read/write. It also ships with a rather flashy red heatsink that keeps this high-performance storage device cool, even when the pressure is on.

Early in 2019, we reviewed Adata’s XPG SX8200 Pro M.2 NVMe SSD, and it has been one of our favorite SSDs to recommend for those on a budget due to its price to performance ratio. The Gammix S11 Pro copies the SX8200 Pro’s recipe for success, just like the vanilla Gammix S11 copied the SX8200’s component design before.

The S11 Pro utilizes Silicon Motion’s current top-end consumer controller, the SM2262EN, and is paired with Micron’s 64L TLC flash, a favorable combination for those looking for speedy performance. The most apparent difference between the two is that the Gammix S11 Pro features a red-and-black heatsink while the SX8200 Pro features a thinner black heat spreader that is optional. Additionally, the firmware is different based on our sampling, and the Gammix S11 Pro comes in fewer capacities, just 256GB to 1TB, while the SX8200 Pro lineup recently expanded up to 2TB.

So, the choice is yours when it comes to aesthetics, but if you want something at 2TB, you’re going to have to go to the SX8200 Pro or something else. Interestingly, the S11 Pro is priced well and costs less than the SX8200 Pro at the 1TB price point at the time of writing, but the lower capacities are priced slightly higher than the SX8200 Pro.

Specifications

Advertised sequential performance numbers come in at up to 3.5/3.0GB/s read/write, while 4K random performance can hit upwards of up to 390,000 / 380,000 IOPS read/write. The endurance ratings don’t improve with the move from the S11’s SM2262 to the S11 Pro’s new SM226EN controller. The 1TB model we are testing today is rated to write up to 640TB before it goes out of warranty, but even with a lengthy 5-year warranty, you’re likely to run out of time before you hit a write cycle wall.

Feature-wise, the Gammix S11 Pro supports the standard stuff like S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, Trim, and support for Format NVM/secure erase commands. It also has LDPC ECC, end-to-end data path protection, and a RAID engine built in to maintain data integrity. Of course, there is a pseudo-SLC write cache as well, where the TLC is programmed to dynamically operate in an SLC mode, which helps improve write performance as well as reads from data still in the cache. 

A Closer Look

Adata’s XPG Gammix S11 Pro is an M.2 2280 form-factor SSD that connects to the host via a PCIe 3.0 x4 link and communicates via the NVMe 1.3 protocol. Our 1TB review sample has a double-sided PCB design, meaning that there are components on each side of it.

Unlike others, Adata was clever to place the spec sticker on the backside of the device as to not hinder its looks. With that flashy red and black heatsink on top of a black PCB, Adata hit a home run with the aesthetics. This drive is significantly better looking than most M.2’s out there.

Silicon Motion’s SMI SM2262EN is an 8-channel NVMe controller that utilizes a DRAM cache to accelerate access to the Flash Translation Layer (FTL). This, in turn, helps improve flash management processes and reduce latency compared to some of the newer DRAMless devices in the market. The DRAM cache is split between two 512MB NANYA DDR3L DRAM packages on our Gammix S11 Pro, just like the SX8200 Pro.

Additionally, connected to this NVMe controller are also four NAND packages, two on each side of the PCB. The new S11 Pro features less over-provisioning than the S11 before it, so instead of access to just 960GB, you get the full 1024GB, or what Windows reports as 953.85GB available to you in disk management.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Comparison Products

Today, we pit the Adata XPG Gammix S11 Pro against a bunch of competing high-end drives. This includes its near-identical twins, the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro and Mushkin Pilot-E, the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and 970 PRO, WD Black SN750, as well as the more affordable Corsair Force MP510 and Intel SSD 660p. On top of this, we added in the super expensive Intel Optane SSD 905p in addition to some more budget-sensible options such as Crucial’s SATA-based https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-ssd-905p,5600.html and a WD Black HDD for good measure.

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.

For those who prioritize fast game load times, the S11 Pro achieved a very fast time on this test. Intel’s Optane 905p takes first place and the Samsung 970 Pro took second, but the Adata S11 Pro’s fastest total load time of 18.55 seconds, outperformed the SX8200 Pro by a fraction of a second and got it third place overall.

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.

In contrast to its game loading results, Adata’s S11 Pro copied the 50GB test folder at a rate of about 100 MBps slower than the SX8200 Pro. But the Mushkin Pilot drive trails by another 27 MBps. This ranks the S11 Pro sixth overall in copy performance.

Large file read performance is also slower. Instead of reading at about 2.2 GBps like the SX8200 Pro or 2 GBps like the Pilot-E, the S11 Pro read the 6.5GB test file at 1.9GB/s. This ranks it eighth overall, though it still outperforms the Intel SSD 660p, MX500, and the WD Black HDD significantly.

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.

It seems that the SX8200 Pro has some faster-performing firmware than that of the S11 Pro. But overall, the S11 Pro is still a high-ranking drive. The S11 Pro scored sixth place and ties the Corsair Force MP510. It outperformed the Pilot-E and WD Black SN750 this time, is almost three times faster than the MX500, and absolutely destroys the HDD’s performance.  

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 include 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.

SYSmark reiterates what we have been seeing. The S11 Pro scores up there with the best, but the SX8200 Pro edges away ever so slightly with higher highs. The S11 Pro comes in fifth place overall, just points behind the Samsungs and ahead of the Pilot-E and WD Black SN750. And, compared to a standard HDD, it isn’t even a fair fight. You’re at a significant disadvantage with an HDD running your OS and applications.

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.

While testing with light workloads revolving around consumer-based use, the S11 Pro usually fell behind the SX8200 Pro ever so slightly. However, in SPECworkstation 3, we can see the opposite occurs. The S11 Pro lands fourth place here, just behind the Samsung 970s and far ahead of the Mushkin Pilot-E. It seems the S11 Pro can better withstand prosumer workloads and delivers more consistent performance.

Synthetic Testing - 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 S11 Pro’s read performance was within a few MBps of the SX8200 Pro, and writes were a bit slower. Overall, the Adata S11 Pro hit about 3.4/2.9 GBps read/write speeds.

Synthetic Testing - iometer

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

The S11 Pro was able to do a little better in testing with iometer. Read performance peaked at 3.5 GBps, while write remained about the same at 2.9 GBps. At QD1, the S11 Pro shows off some of the fastest response times in the whole group, save for the Intel Optane 905p. Even averaging QD1-4, this drive proves to be one of the fastest consumer SSDs available. And, at a high QD of 128, random performance maxes out at about 365,000 / 412,000 read/write IOPS.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement a pseudo-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 pSLC 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 pSLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

Like Adata’s SX8200 Pro, the S11 Pro has a large write cache, but after extensive writing, performance can degrade significantly and lead to inconsistency. The S11 Pro’s cache was able to sustain writing at 2.9 GBps for a total of 162GB of data before performance degraded to an average of 930 MBps. However, beyond 670GB written, performance degraded once more to an average of 540 MBps.

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 S11 Pro’s power consumption is a bit more restrained than the SX8200 Pro. This could be the reasoning behind its slightly slower file copy results. Nevertheless, the S11 Pro, consumed a similar amount of power on average as Mushkin’s Pilot-E. With an average of 220 MBps per watt consumed, it lands second place on the efficiency chart here, closely on the heels of WD’s Black SN750. Sipping just 12mW of power at idle with ASPM enabled, it is rather efficient when idling, too.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Whether you're trying to upgrade from your SATA-based SSD to a faster NVMe drive or looking for a new one to add to your next gaming build, be sure to give Adata’s XPG Gammix S11 Pro a good look. Based on our experience with it, it's easy to recommend.

The drive looks great with the blacked-out PCB and sleek red-and-black heatsink. In other words, it looks just as fast as it is and would be a fine aesthetic addition to many builds. Surprisingly, though, its performance is tuned a bit differently than the SX8200 Pro’s and closer to the Mushkin Pilot-E, or in-between the two during most tasks.

While each of Adata’s Pro SSDs are comprised of the same components, they feature different firmware. This led to some differences in performance during testing, where the SX8200 Pro outclassed the S11 Pro under light workloads, and even during our transfer tests. But, the S11 Pro outperformed its sibling drive during heavier prosumer workloads and was more consistent. And, it was is slightly more efficient, making it the second most efficient overall in in our test pool. That said, if you primarily car about gaming, most NVMe SSDs perform practically the same.

The S11 Pro also priced competitively, and Adata backs the S11 Pro with a 5-year warranty and outfits it with similar endurance as most top-ranking SSDs. The company also includes support via an SSD toolbox and Acronis True Image disk imaging software for free.

In short, Adata’s XPG Gammix S11 Pro offers a lot of performance for not a whole lot more than most entry-level SSDs. It sure as heck is a lot cheaper than the WD Black SN750 and Samsung 970 EVO Plus, which makes it a great value for those looking to balance speed and budget. That said, HP's SSD EX950 is quite similar and is now selling for $10 less. And the Phison E12-powered Corsair Force MP510 is just $125 at this time. But these drives have no heatsinks included. So, if you are trying to pinch pennies while attaining some of the highest NVMe speeds you can, there are some alternatives. But if you want all those things plus good looks, this ADATA drive is tough to beat.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Mushkin’s Pilot-E takes flight

Mushkin’s top-tier M.2 NVMe SSD is finally available. Like the lower-end Pilot, we reviewed a few months back, Mushkin’s new Pilot-E brings some heat with it, not only because of its competitive pricing. This variant features an updated NVMe controller for even better performance and efficiency.

Unlike the company’s Helix-L, an entry-level DRAMless SSD, the Pilot-E was built for speed. At the heart of Mushkin’s Pilot-E is one of the fastest NVMe controllers available, Silicon Motion’s SM2262EN. The SM2262EN features a DRAM-based architecture with eight NAND channels that link up to some of Micron’s 64-layer 3D TLC. Together, this combination is rated to hit some impressive speeds -- up to 3.5GBps read and 3.1GBps write.

It is actually very similar in design to both the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro and HP’s SSD EX950 overall. Our sample even features a black PCB, which improves the looks of the device dramatically over the base Pilot before it. But what helps to differentiate the Pilot-E from these two high-performance competitors as well as many other alternatives is the inclusion of hardware-based AES 256-bit encryption support. If you have sensitive data or just want to keep your files secure in case you lose your device, this feature will help keep it away from prying eyes.

Specifications

The Pilot-E is available in capacities of 500GB, 1TB, and 2TB. Priced at $138.99, the 1TB is the sweet spot when looking to get the best price per GB. In terms of random performance, the Pilot-E is rated to deliver up to 344,000 read IOPS and 358,000 write IOPS, depending on the capacity.

Along with high performance, this SSD also offers competitive endurance figures. At 500GB, it's rated for up to 350TB written and up to 650TB at the 1TB capacity. But the 2TB capacity takes the cake as the most enduring device in the line-up with a rating of up to 1,300TB. Unfortunately, while endurance is high, Mushkin outfits the Pilot-E with a shorter than average 3-year warranty

Additionally, the Pilot-E is covered by M.E.D.S., Mushkin’s Enhanced Data-protection Suite. This is just marketing speech for some of the controller’s various management features, like end-to-end data path protection, LDPC error correction code, and an endurance-improving data-shaping algorithm. Additionally, the controller supports StaticDataRefresh to ensure data performance and integrity over time, as well as wear-leveling algorithms to help improve the NAND’s lifespan.

And there’s also S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, and NVMe Deallocate function support (NVMe equivalent of TRIM command), and support for the Format NVM / secure erase command to wipe the drive clean of any data.  

Software and Accessories

The Pilot-E lacks software support and any accessories, save for a Mushkin Enhanced sticker.

A Closer Look

Aesthetically, the Pilot-E is a step up from the Pilot it succeeds. Our 1TB sample comes in an M.2 2280 form factor with components on both sides of the black PCB, accented with a black and blue sticker over top. This SSD will blend in with more gaming systems than the Pilot ever could.

The overall design is different from previous SN2262EN-based SSDs we reviewed. Rather than set close to the M.2 connector, the NVMe controller sits more centered on the PCB, with the DRAM lying between the two. As well, the NAND is arranged in a different layout on the PCB: Two NAND packages lay horizontal and two vertical.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: Best External Hard Drives and SSDs

1TB Performance Results

Comparison Products

Today, the Pilot-E gets thrown into the ring with some of the top mainstream SSDs out there, as well as a few value options. From Samsung, we’ve included both the 970 PRO and 970 EVO Plus. Both utilize Samsung’s Phoenix NVMe controller, but the PRO features 64L MLC V-NAND while the EVO Plus has 9xL TLC V-NAND. Also included is WD’s Black SN750, boasting an in-house 8 channel NVMe controller and Toshiba BiCS3 64L TLC. Corsair’s Force MP510 represents one of the many Phison E12 based SSDs out and Adata’s XPG SX8200 Pro is the Pilot-E’s direct competitor. Additionally, we threw in Intel’s best value NVMe SSD, the 660p as well as its ridiculously expensive and fast Optane 905P. Finally, we threw in an Adata’s XPG SX6000 Pro and Crucial’s MX500 for comparison sake with lower-end SSD options.

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.

Silicon Motion’s NVMe controllers seem to have some of the fastest 4K read performance. Thanks to this, the Mushkin Pilot-E is able to attain a fast total load time of 19.05 seconds. This lands it 5^th place overall and ranks it much faster than most 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 6.5 GB file.

When it comes to copying 50GB of files, Adata’s SX8200 Pro has the upper hand. With an average throughput of 749MBps, the Mushkin Pilot-E is 17% slower. Still, it is significantly faster than the Corsair Force MP510 and the entry-level competitors. Just as well, when reading back our 6.5GB test file, the Pilot-E’s read performance is nearly 200MBps slower than the Adata and ties the Intel Optane 905P. Overall, it ranks 6^th on these charts.

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.

With a score of 5,099 points and an average throughput of 678MBps, the Pilot-E scores 6^th place overall. Here it outranked the WD Black SN750 with its faster random performance, but the Adata, Corsair, and Samsung’s 970 series all outrank it. Overall, the Pilot-E will provide more than ample performance for your average home and office applications.

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.

Intel’s Optane SSD 905P blows all its competitors out of the water in this test. With its ultra-low latency memory, nothing can touch it. Here, Mushkin’s Pilot-E surpasses the WD Black SN750 in application performance, though this time by just a hair. With a final score of 3.47 points, it will provide adequate performance for workstation use. But the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro, the Corsair Force MP510, and the Samsung drives all prove to be slightly better for the task. 

Synthetic Testing - 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.

Overall, read and write performance lags behind slightly compared to the test pool’s average, but that doesn’t stop Mushkin’s Pilot-E from hitting speeds of 3.35GBps read and 3.00GBps write in ATTO.

Synthetic Testing - iometer

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

Mushkin’s Pilot-E delivered competitive read and write results when testing it with iometer. Under sequential tests, the SSD averaged about 3.5GBps read and 3GBps write throughput. 4K random response times were quite fast too. But once again, the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro shows that there is still some room for improvement. Averaging the SSD’s queue depth 1-4 performance, we can see that it outranks the WD Black, Intel 660p, and SX6000 Pro, but the SX8200 Pro gets in an additional 1,500 IOPS. As well, under peak load, the SX8200 Pro can deliver almost 100,000 more read IOPS and the Pilot-E.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Most SSD makers implement a pseudo-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 pSLC 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 pSLC buffer and performance after the buffer is saturated.

The Pilot-E’s SLC write cache isn’t as large as Adata’s. While both drives are neck and neck writing over 160GB of data within only a minute, after that, the SX8200 Pro starts to leave the Pilot-E behind. While the Adata maintains over 1GBps write speeds once the cache fills and then 615MBps at its slowest, the Pilot-E degrades to an average of 675MBps and then later just over 400MBps as it folds over SLC data to TLC cells. Overall, this write performance should not leave you disappointed for most day-to-day use.

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 Pilot-E sips very little power at idle, just 12mW when ASPM is enabled in our BIOS, similar to other Silicon Motion based SSDs. It wasn’t quite as fast as the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro during our file copy test, but on average it consumes less power, which propels the Pilot-E to second place on our efficiency chart. Unlike the Adata, this Mushkin drive isn’t wasting power trying for the best performance; it's quite balanced. 

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: Best External Hard Drives and SSDs

Conclusion

Compared to most other Silicon Motion SM2262EN based SSDs, Mushkin has chosen an alternative PCB design we have yet to come across on other drives. Mushkin places the Pilot-E’s controller closer to the NAND rather than the host connector. But this difference in controller and DRAM placement may have led to some subtle performance differences.

In testing, it was clear that while the Pilot-E performed admirably overall, under our application tests it lagged behind the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro time and time again. And, when it came to efficiency, the Pilot-E’s performance leaned more towards optimized power consumption rather than raw speed.

The Pilot-E features hardware-based AES 256-bit encryption, a handy high-class security feature many other drives lack, which provides no penalty to performance if you opt to enable it.  It's a great addition to cater to those security-conscious people upgrading their storage.

Competitors like the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and Kingston’s recently reviewed KC2000 feature this as well. The Pilot-E’s main advantage against those two is price. But while it is much less costly than these two at the time of writing, it is not without its drawbacks or lack of other competition.

Its value is weakened by its shorter-than-average 3-year warranty coverage. As well, Mushkin’s product lacks any value-add software support such as an SSD toolbox or cloning software. But these are minor complaints. The Pilot-E will function the same regardless.

If you are not in need of the added security feature, the Adata XPG SX8200 Pro may be a better buy. While the Adata is roughly $10 more at the 1TB capacity, it offers bleeding-edge burst performance that outranks the Pilot-E and even surpasses the Samsung 970 EVO Plus and WD Black in various workloads. Not only that, those few extra dollars get you a slick heat spreader to help cool the device and a longer 5-year warranty.

Alternatively, the HP SSD EX950 is priced practically the same as the Pilot-E and it comes with a 5-year warranty, too. And, if you are looking to spend a bit less, the popular Phison E12-based SSDs like the Silicon Power A34A80, similar to the Corsair Force MP510, is a great value at just $115.  

Overall, the Pilot-E is a solid choice if you are on the hunt for your next OS drive or just wanting to add more high-speed storage to your build. It scores style points with its black PCB, and while it isn’t the fastest SSD on the shelf, it is still plenty fast, with impressive endurance rathings, and quite efficient too.

Photo Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs And SSDs

MORE: Best External Hard Drives and SSDs

Time for Lift Off

Texas-based Mushkin may have started out making enthusiast-focused memory, but these days the company offers a broad array of SSDs as well. Whether it's in the standard 2.5-inch form factor, or the slimmed-down and often speedy M.2 drives that have become prevalent in the past few years, Mushkin has an SSD at the speed and capacity to fit almost anyone’s storage needs. And if speed is your need, the NVMe Mushkin Pilot is the drive to choose.

Mushkin should soon be pushing out a newer Pilot-E drive. But as of this writing, the Pilot is company's current speed-focused drive. While its design is last-gen, performance is still very competitive, and the drive is all about competitive pricing.

Rated performance is respectable at up to 2,710/1,775 MBps of read/write throughput, but not bleeding edge. SSDs like the Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus and WD’s Black SN750 easily surpass it in raw performance numbers of up to 3.5GBps. But unlike those two companies, Mushkin doesn’t own a NAND fab, nor does it have the ability to bring to market an SSD controller of its own. Instead, the company is bound to other companies such as Micron for NAND and Silicon Motion for controllers.

But, even with this burden, Mushkin’s reputation to deliver low cost and quality products isn’t hampered. The Pilot is actually a good value for those looking to save a few bucks on their storage costs. While Mushkin has to purchase components that are outside of its production capabilities, the Mushin Pilot is still significantly cheaper than those costly previously mentioned drives.

The Pilot features Micron’s 64L TLC NAND flash and Silicon Motion’s SM2262 NVMe SSD controller, the same one found in the Intel 760p. It lacks Intel’s custom firmware, but even with stock firmware from Silicon Motion, the Pilotx is able to do rather well for itself. This is not the latest controller from the company, but it still has enough grunt to keep up with most consumer workload demands.

Specifications

The Mushkin Pilot has been available for quite a few months and all capacities, ranging from 120GB up to 2TB, are available for purchase at rather competitive prices. The 500GB and 1TB models come in at roughly $0.14 per GB, making them the best value out of the bunch.

Performance figures on our 500GB sample are rated for up to 2,680/1,755MBps read/write; the others vary depending on the specific capacity. Random IOPS performance also varies by capacity. The 500GB model is the highest rated, with figures of up to 335K/277K IOPS read/write.

Unlike most SSDs out these days, the Pilot doesn’t have any official endurance ratings that we could find. So, significant write endurance shouldn't hold back its 3-year warranty coverage.

Feature-wise, Mushkin says the Pilot is covered by its Mushkin Enhanced Data-protection Suite -- M.E.D.S. for short. This covers the built-in LDPC error correction code, end-to-end data path protection, a data shaping algorithm to improve endurance, StaticDataRefresh to ensure data integrity over time, and wear-leveling to help improve the NAND’s lifespan.

As well, the drive boasts standard features like S.M.A.R.T. data reporting, Trim, and support for Format NVM /secure erase commands.

A Closer Look

Mushkin’s Pilot is an M.2 2280 form factor SSD. It connects to the host over a PCIe 3.0 x4 link and communicates via the NVMe protocol. The 500GB sample we're reviewing today features a double-sided PCB design, which means there are components on each side. Overall, the drive isn’t too aesthetically pleasing, with a green PCB and a blue sticker on top. But on the bright side, the components are top quality.

The Silicon Motion SMI SM2262 controller utilizes a DRAM cache for the FTL layer, which is split between two 256MB NANYA DDR3L DRAM packages. Connected to this 8-channel NVMe controller are also four NAND packages, two on each side of the PCB. The full capacity isn’t available for use, rather there is a bit of over-provisioning to help maintain higher performance levels. The total usable space to the end user once formatted is 465GB.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs and SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

500GB Performance Results

Comparison Products

Entering the ring against the Mushkin Pilot we have a few other popular 500GB class SSDs. For starters, there's the more-expensive Intel 760p, Adata SX8200 Pro, and Samsung 970 EVO Plus. As well, we have results from the more affordable MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro, WD Blue SN500, and Crucial P1. Additionally, we threw in results from a Samsung 860 EVO for good measure to see just how much -- or how little -- these high-performance NVMe devices outperform a SATA SSD.

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.

Mushkin’s Pilot eats through PCMark 8 and spits out a score of 5,064 points and an average bandwidth of 465MBps. This easily outperforms the Crucial P1, which features QLC NAND, as well as the SATA based 860 EVO. The WD Blue SN500 gives the Pilot some tough competition as well as the 760P, which utilizes a similar NAND controller, but Intel’s own firmware.

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.

As it is with most Silicon Motion-based SSDs, the Mushkin Pilot delivers one of the fastest total load times. While it may seem slower than most of the other PCIe 3.0 x4 devices on paper due to lower specs, real-world performance is quite impressive. At 20.19 seconds, it even outperforms the Samsung 970 EVO Plus, for a fraction of the price.

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.

File transfer performance is also very impressive. Again, while it seems like an underdog, an average transfer speed of 337MBps says otherwise.

Here, the Pilot scored second place in our file transfer test, second only to the Intel Optane based 905P. Read performance could have used some improvement, however. With a read speed of 1.6GBps, the Pilot scored 6th place here. The Adata SX8200 Pro, which flaunts the newer SMI SM22562EN controller, is capable of reading at a faster pace of about 1.9GBps.

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.

SYSmark installed in a respectable time like most other SSDs of the Pilot's caliber. Here it ranked 5th overall in both install time and total responsiveness score once the benchmark completed. With a score of 1706 points, the Pilot proves to be quite competitive in real-world applications, outperforming the WD Blue SN500 and Crucial P1 with ease. Compared to a standard HDD, it's in another league. If you have not yet upgraded to an SSD, this test really shows what you are missing out in terms of user experience.

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.

Mushkin’s Pilot flaunts read and write speeds of up to 2.7/1.7GBps in ATTO. Most newer drives are now pushing past 3GBps, but these are still rather respectable speeds. That said, Intel was able to push the SM2262 a little more with read performance of up to 3.2GBps.

CrystalDiskMark

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

Mirroring the performance seen in ATTO, the Pilot delivers sequential performance of about 2.7/1/7GBps read/write when at a high queue depth. Bringing down the queue depth to a single request reduces performance to about 2.0/1.5GBps read/write, which is still pretty good and roughly four times faster than any SATA SSD.

4K random performance isn’t the best, but with up to 235K/295K IOPS read/write performance, the Pilot is much more capable than any HDD or SATA SSD. At a low QD of 1, it delivers 14K/41K IOPS read/write, which is again, much better than anything in the SATA field.

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.

Mushkin’s Pilot features SLC caching to help boost write performance, but just how much does it help? Overall, the Pilot comes in sixth place, just behind the SX8200 Pro. But it wasn’t until it wrote for 5 minutes straight that the SX8200 Pro overtook it. Before that, the Mushin Pilot actually absorbed more data at a faster rate. This helps to explain the high performance we saw earlier in our 50GB file copy test. The Mushkin Pilot’s SLC cache implementation is one of the best for most consumer workloads.

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.

Not only is it quite fast, but the Mushkin Pilot is quite power efficient to boot. It consumed an average of 3 watts during our 50GB file transfer, and that helped to propel it to second place in efficiency overall. Idle power consumption is very well regulated too. With ASPM disabled, we measure it consuming 657mW of power, but when it was enabled, that number dropped to just 11mW.

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs and SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Conclusion

Mushkin has a reputation of delivering quality and competitive components, and the Pilot carries on that legacy. But that doesn’t exclude it from criticism.

Aesthetically, the Mushkin Pilot is one ugly drive. With a green PCB and bright blue sticker, it most definitely will clash with many of the good-looking motherboards and systems being built today. But this is nothing an aftermarket heatsink won’t remedy. And of course laptop users or desktop builders without a case window won't care how the drive looks.

Currently, Mushkin doesn’t offer any value-add software like an SSD toolbox, nor any cloning software like some others do. As well, the Pilot comes with a 3-year warranty, while many other premium drives offer  five years of coverage. But, while the Pilot comes with a shorter warranty, customer service from an American-based company helps differentiate Muskin's drive, at least if you live in the US.

Performance wise, the Pilot isn’t bleeding edge. It only hits 2.7/1.7GBps read and write speeds. But even so, in most real-world use it can keep up with some of the best. In SYSmark it outperformed the WD Blue SN500, Crucial P1, and BPX Pro and was within a few points of the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro. Furthermore, it bested every other competitor in our 50GB file transfer test, through its read performance could have been better. The Intel 760p with a similar component layout was able to read the 6GB file much faster. Still, the Pilot doesn’t disappoint.

With such performance, and competitive pricing, Mushin’s Pilot delivers on value. Our 500GB sample comes in at just $72 and the 1TB model just $135. While that is a few dollars more than the Crucial P1 and WD Blue SN500, it's cheaper than the SATA based Samsung 860 EVO, and significantly cheaper than the WD Black SN750 and Samsung 970 EVO Plus. The Pilot is great for those looking to break free of SATA and save a few bucks while still attaining respectable NVMe speed.

Image Credits: Tom's Hardware

MORE: Best SSDs

MORE: How We Test HDDs and SSDs

MORE: All SSD Content

Back at CES 2019, Mushkin unveiled a new M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe SSD in the Helix-L. The new SSD promised NVMe level performance and a reasonable price point, though at the time pricing was not available. Today they have announced availability as well as pricing with the 1TB model coming in at $120, 500GB is $63, while the 250GB drive is $43. The drives are said to reach speeds up to 2110 MB/s reads and 1700 MB/s writes (1TB model) offering users much faster than SATA performance at closer to SATA pricing.

The Helix-L uses the Silicon Motion SM2263XT controller, SLC caching and Host Memory Buffer (HMB) technology instead of an integrated DRAM cache. In a nutshell, HMB technology uses system memory to cache the translation table instead of using the more costly (and better performing) DRAM cache. This allows companies to save money and offer a less expensive, though typically slower, NVMe based storage.

Speeds on the smaller capacity drives are a bit slower on reads with writes taking the more notable performance hit (as per usual). The 250GB model is rated at 2010/1250 MB/s (R/W) with the 500GB model reaching 2105/1670 MB/s. IOPS reach up to 240,000/260,000 IOPS on the 500GB and 1TB models while the 250GB is slower on reads but features the same write IOPS at 200,000/260,000 respectively. A more detailed specifications table for each capacity is below. 

Other features on the Helix-L include Mushkin’s M.E.D.S data protection suite which has built-in LDPC ECC, data shaping for increased endurance, global wear leveling to even program/erase counts, and NVMe deallocate functionality (essentially TRIM for an NVMe drive). Mushkin’s MTBF on the Helix-L is 1.5 million hours with up to 600TB TBW (on the 1TB drive) while being backed by a three-year warranty.

All drives are available now on Amazon or Newegg and priced at or below the MSRP.

Features & Specifications

Mushkin passed along a dual-module 8GB (that is, 16GB total) kit of its Redline DDR4-2666 memory just in time for our Z370 launch. (Specifically, this kit is part number MRA4U266GHHF8GX2.) Alas, none of the boards we originally tested at the time of that launch was (by our admittedly aggressive memory-overclocker standards) “good enough” to use as a test platform. Months passed before we finally settled on a board that’s still a little shy on memory overclocking compared to the Z270 platform that preceded it. But, hey, at least we get to test with a faster Coffee Lake CPU...

Rated at DDR4-2666 with a JEDEC-beating CAS 16 latency, MRA4U266GHHF8GX2 uses Mushkin’s classic “Frostbyte”-style heat spreaders.

The full primary timing set of 16-17-17-36 beats standard DDR4-2666 CAS 17 timings while retaining industry-standard 1.20V DDR4 voltage. But those improved timings still require the builder to enable XMP mode. Without enabling XMP, the memory defaults to DDR4-2133 CAS 15. Let's get down to testing it.

Specifications

Like all Mushkin DRAM, this DDR4-2666 16GB dual-channel kit is covered by its lifetime-replacement limited warranty.

Comparison Products

Our greatest concern for fairness was to make sure the Redline 16GB DDR4-2666 would be compared to other kits in the same two-8GB-module configuration. But notice below that one thing remains different for one set: The DDR4-3000 kit has eight 512MB ICs on each side rather than eight 1024GB ICs on just one side. Eight ICs make up a 64-bit “rank,” so that for each memory channel, one “dual-rank” module performs similarly to two single-rank modules.

Intel’s memory controller works better with four ranks than with two. Because this performance difference caused confusion in a previous review, we’ve added the “dual rank” tag here for clarity.

We’re expanding outward from our Corsair DDR4-4600 review by switching to a board that supports four DIMMs. MSI’s Z370 Godlike Gaming doesn’t have any memory overclocking advantages over the smaller board used in that review, but it has similar performance scaling and can push several of our kits past DDR4-4000. We’re also holding over the hardware from that review, including our GeForce GTX 1080 and Toshiba/OCZ NVMe SSD.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

We start today’s review with a little latency tuning, to find out just how quick each module can be set without losing stability. As indicated, the Mushkin Redline 16GB kit can be tweaked one cycle lower than its default 16-17-17 timings. Two of the other kits will also be tested at DDR4-2666. Unfortunately, the motherboard could not automatically configure a workable set of secondary and tertiary timings to make the DDR4-3200 work at DDR4-2666. (Additional testing showed that the board would configure DDR4-2400 through DDR4-2800 ratios using its DDR4-2133 timing table, and DDR-2933 upward using its DDR4-3200 settings.)

Because the test board doesn’t support any of our modules at DDR4-4200 or above, we put the pedal to the metal using 19-21-21-42 timings at an Intel-accepted 1.35V. The Redline DDR4-2666 wouldn’t overclock to our next “test step” of DDR4-3200, so it’s competing based mostly on value pricing and latency optimization.

Sandra Memory Bandwidth shows the dual-rank kit outperforming everything else at any given speed. The lower-density DRAM ICs required to fill an 8GB module out with 16 “chips” are getting less common, however, and stepping up to higher-capacity modules (16GB-per-DIMM) has become the best alternative to finding “dual-rank” DIMMs.

With modest data rates and relatively poor timings (even when pushed to its limits), Redline DDR4-2666 will likely appeal only to buyers on tight budgets. Let’s see how this plays out in real-world apps.

F1 2015 is only GPU-limited when used with low-end graphics solutions such as onboard devices. Breaking past that boundary, it becomes CPU-constrained only on the lowest-clocked parts. Its memory bottleneck is most significant when performance parts are used throughout the system, and it’s there that we find that dual-rank is the better option, followed by optimized timings, followed by higher data rates.

Metro: Last Light Redux is a better example of how typical games respond to memory, as the game usually scales back only with extremely slow modules installed. Keeping it in the benchmark set helps us keep our perspective: Very few games will benefit in the way that F1 2015 does.

Blender’s CPU render is another application that punishes only poor memory configurations, and it shows the settings to be "good enough." If you’re using these kind of applications, you’re better off saving your money and settling for the DDR4-2666.

7-Zip is affected by various things including CPU, storage, and DRAM. Our super-fast CPU and NVMe drive lets the program lean hard on RAM, where the performance scaling is similar to that of the game F1 2015. The bar scaling is the opposite of performance scaling, though, since less time means more performance in timed applications.

Here’s the payoff: The Redline DDR4-2666 kit isn’t cheap, but it’s cheap enough to knock the DDR4-3200 and DDR4-3866 out of the value race at both XMP and latency-optimized settings. The only configuration that beats it on value uses a pair of harder-to-find dual-rank 8GB modules.

Mushkin’s DDR4-2666 delivers decent-enough value that it earns a thumbs-up for money-minded buyers. We can recommend it to anyone looking to save a few bucks while running most applications that aren't affected greatly by higher data rates and lower latency settings.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

LAS VEGAS, NV -- Mushkin tapped Taiwan SSD controller designer Silicon Motion, Inc for its 2018 line up. At CES 2018, was saw the full product line coming to market in the coming months from this legendary enthusiast brand.

On tap are three NVMe products using the latest 1.3 protocol. The SM2262EN, SM2262, and SM2263XT DRAM-less HMB controllers fill the NVMe roster. Mushkin has every new SMI controller in the lineup expect for the mainstream SM2263. The company will have a heavy focus on the M.2 form factor—even the SATA AHCI Triactor 3DL will also ship in a M.2, but the new Triactor 3DX will feature a standard 2.5" design.

Mushkin was the only manufacturer at the show with a SM2262EN on display (that we saw; it's a big show). The SM2262EN is a true premium class NVMe controller with its sights set on the Samsung 960 Pro and rumored 980 (OEM PM981 Review Here). Mushkin tells us to expect up to 3,500 / 3,000 MB/s sequential read / write speeds from the Pilot-E. Random performance reaches as high as 370,000 / 300,000 IOPS read / write with capacities lifted up to 2TB in a double-sided M.2 2280 for factor.

The Pilot NVMe 1.3 SSD uses the more mainstream SM2262 controller and also reaches up to 2TB. This drive shares the Pilot-E's random performance numbers but loses some sequential performance. With up to 3,000 / 1,900 sequential read / write speeds, the Pilot will still offer more performance than most NVMe SSDs shipping today. It will be interesting to see the price gap between these two speedy products.

The upcoming Helix-L uses the SMI SM2263XT DRAM-less architecture with Host Memory Buffer (HMB) technology that was rolled out in the Windows 10 Fall Creators Update. We've tested the SM2263XT in the lab and were very impressed with the performance. Mushkin's implementation will ship in 120GB to 1TB sizes with up to 2,400 / 1,700 sequential read / write speeds. Random performance reaches as high as 280,000 IOPS read and 250,000 IOPS write speeds. If your system doesn't support HMB you will lose around 30,000 random read IOPS.

We cover HMB technology in our article but don't mind giving you a primer here. The manufacturers can use HMB to remove the DRAM from the SSD. The DRAM caches the map table on the SSD, where you data is at, the order, and so on. This new technology uses a small amount of your system memory (RAM) to cache the map table. The data passes through the PCIe bus with special instructions for the CPU to pass the data directly to RAM. The technology reduces the component costs by eliminating the memory on the SSD and making the SSD controller less complicated to design and manufacture.

Mushkin has two SATA products ready for release in 2018. The Triactor 3DX uses a SM2258 controller like the Crucial MX500 (review here). We will need to see how efficient Mushkin can implement an SLC cache for this series to know how well it performs in real-world consumer workloads. The Triactor 3DL uses the SMI SM2258XT DRAM-less controller that we've also tested but not with new 64-layer 3D NAND that increases the performance and endurance.

Mushkin CarbonEXT

The CarbonEXT uses a USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gb/s) to deliver up to 450 MB/s sequential read and write speeds. Mushkin expects flash to become cheap enough in 2018 for the technology to become viable for more users to replace spinning disk for every storage device in their personal arsenal. The external SSD market started with Kingston (HyperX Portable) and OCZ (ENYO) back in 2010. In 2018, the category may expand into the mainstream, but for that to happen the fabs will have to pump out low-cost flash in volumes we've never seen before.

Features & Specifications

The T-Force sub-brand is alive and kicking at Team Group, and the firm is finally taking on its DRAM competitors in the RGB arena. Night Hawk RGB modules have been around a few weeks, but it wasn’t until recently that Asus published an update to its Aura software (available using Asus Aura-enabled motherboards) that could control the RGB features of these modules. A beta version of the Aura software was available for earlier reviews, but we prefer to use software to which all users have access.

Specifications

The part number we received, TF2D416G3000HC16CDC01, comes in white, and runs at a DDR4-3000 CAS 16 as the name implies. Those timings are just a little relaxed by standards of the performance enthusiast market, where a cycle of latency for every 200 MHz of data rate (such as DDR4-3000 CAS 15) is quickly becoming the baseline.

The DDR4-3000 rating requires XMP mode to configure both its data rate and 16-18-18-38 timings at 1.35V. At 1.20V defaults, motherboards will configure these two 8GB modules at DDR4-2133 CAS 15. Even slower configurations are available within the SPD table to expand compatibility with troublesome platforms.

The Night Hawk RGB retail box includes two 53mm-tall (2.1”) modules and an installation manual. Also included, but not photographable, is Team Group’s Lifetime Warranty. You'll simply have to imagine it (or click the link).

The Night Hawk RGB ships with its LEDs programmed to Rainbow mode. Team Group does not include RGB software, although users of Asus motherboards can load that company's Aura software for some control over the lighting. While not as detailed as the settings of some of its competitors, we eventually got the modules to do what we wanted by happenstance after poking around the menu options for a while.

Comparison Products

The only set of competing RGB modules we had on hand were G.Skill’s DDR4-3600 four-DIMM set. All four modules are the same 8GB size and use the same single-sided configuration as those of the Night Hawk RGB being tested today, but four single-sided DIMMs have the performance advantage of providing the four ranks of addressable memory that our Kaby Lake test bed prefers.

Mushkin’s Redline Ridgeback DDR4-3200 has the closest matching DRAM IC compared to Night Hawk RGB, with its eight ICs occupying one side of each DIMM and configured as one rank, for a total of two ranks.

T-Force Dark ROG dual-rank DIMMs were specifically designed to exploit the four-rank preference of Kaby Lake processors by packing two ranks per double-sided DIMM. While it's the only set in today’s test to have an identical module count, data rate, timings, and capacity to the Night Hawk RGB, we have a feeling that the four-rank advantage will force Team Group to lose the performance race to itself.

Test System

Our latest memory test system exploits the stability of Asus’ ROG Maximus IX Hero to leverage the strong overclocking capability of Intel’s Core i7-7700K and the graphics bottleneck-smashing MSI GTX 1080 Armor O/C. Though the test bed has been designed to eliminate bottlenecks, test software was chosen to indicate a real-world performance experience.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

Benchmark Results & Final Analysis

With barely any flexibility to tighten timings, Mushkin’s Redline Ridgeback should prove a relatively easy mark for Night Hawk RGB to exceed. That still makes the new modules third-worst in tuning ability.

Night Hawk DDR4-3000 drops to fourth place in overclocking capability, though the difference between it, the Mushin DDR4-3200, and Team Group’s ROG DDR4-3000 is relatively small.

Amazingly, the Night Hawk RGB performed a little better at its rated (XMP) settings than at optimized DDR4-3200 timings. Perhaps that’s because the test motherboard de-optimized secondary and tertiary timings from a performance standpoint to provide better stability?

Lower is better in latency, and the Night Hawk RGB had the second-best latency reading at its DDR4-3200 optimized timings. That’s unusual given its mediocre bandwidth measurement, though the difference between its 18.5ns XMP setting and its 18.1ns at DDR4-3200 is relatively small.

F1 2015 is known to have memory bottlenecks, and the Night Hawk RGB’s best settings match only those of the other single-sided DIMMs in today’s test.

Metro Last Light is closer to the majority of games in that it has barely any preference for super fast RAM. It was in a race to the bottom with Mushkin’s similarly-configured DDR4-3200, and tied.

Blender also gets minimal improvement from super fast memory, though super slow RAM can do some damage. Though a single outlier score could be called a quirk, the Night Hawk RGB takes several one-second losses. On the other hand, a single-second loss would hardly be noticed in the real-life application of a three-minute render.

7-Zip file compression times appear strange, though somewhat close to those of the other single-sided, dual-DIMM kit in today’s test. It appears that double-sided, or four-DIMM, is the way to go in this test.

A basic performance-per-dollar analysis hurts kits where lighting or added capacity is a big part of the pricing scheme. The Trident Z has both twice the capacity, via twice the number of DIMMs, and RGB lighting.

When we adjust the performance-per-dollar rating to capacity, we still see the Trident Z RGB flailing for any sense of reasonable value against the Night Hawk RGB. Only Team Group’s own Dark ROG is capable of overtaking the value imparted by Night Hawk RGB’s relatively-reasonable price.

Crunching a few numbers, we find that Night Hawk Dark RGB modules would need to drop $16 in price to match the performance-value of the same manufacturer’s Dark ROG kit. The question remaining is whether the RGB lighting is worth that $16. And the answer for many buyers will likely be yes. At this point, I’d like to close this review with a value award. A far higher price for G.Skill’s Trident Z obviously isn’t competing for the same market, so that makes Night Hawk RGB a top-finishing value in RGB.

Unfortunately, Team Group has already pumped the idea of optimized performance via four-rank configuration in its Dark ROG memory. You’d want two Night Hawk RGB kits to achieve both the flash and dash on a Z270 motherboard. Still, value supremacy within a very narrow set of circumstances deserves, at a minimum, our stamp of approval.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

Introducing Redline Ridgeback DDR4-3200

What started as a memory series with high-priced heat spreaders to help overclockers expel heat, the lower voltage of DDR4 has allowed Mushkin to scale back its Ridgeback design to become little more than an aesthetic treatment. You still get Mushkin’s top rated Redline modules under the skin, it’s just that the skin need not be as elaborate when covering today’s lower voltage ICs.

I like to start off with names that people can remember, and Redline Ridgeback DDR4-3200 is easily remembered. Conversely, the model number MRB4U320LLLM8GX2 isn’t. Because this is the only currently available 16GB dual-channel kit of Ridgeback DDR4-3200, you probably won’t need to remember that model number.

Ridgeback DDR4-3200 comes with highly conservative CAS 20 timings, bucking the enthusiast trendline of 1 cycle latency for every 200 MHz of data rate that has brought us DDR4-3200 CAS 16, DDR3-1600 CAS 8, DDR2-800 CAS 4, and DDR-400 CAS 2. Benchmarks will determine how this impacts performance, and we'll also drive the modules through traditional overclocking and latency optimization routines to find out how much performance has been left in reserve.

Regardless of what some readers keep saying, CPU-Z remains a relatively useful program for displaying a module’s top four timing sets in an easy screen shot format when deployed on most motherboards. It accurately shows DDR4-3200 (1600 MHz clock) timings available using a motherboard’s XMP setting, along with the DDR4-2133 (1066 MHz clock) CAS 15 timings that most motherboards will use when XMP mode is disabled.

Standing up to 1.65” (42mm) tall and rated at 1.35V, Mushkin’s Redline Ridgeback DDR4-3200 16GB dual-channel kit carries a (limited) lifetime replacement warranty. As with most manufacturers, its liability exclusions mean that if a single-bit failure causes your nuclear reactor to melt down, the company will replace the defective module (assuming you can still get to it) but won’t pay to replace the reactor. That is, unless it’s a Mushkin Reactor.

Test Setup

Recent improvements in motherboard firmware and circuit layout that are designed to complement the latest CPU memory controller revisions have finally produced a test system capable of exceeding DDR4-4000 when using top modules, without significantly exceeding the 1.35V DIMM limit suggested by Intel. A newer graphics card and storage complete our latest upgrade.

Supplied for use in motherboard reviews, G.Skill’s 32GB four DIMM DDR4-3866 kit is the starting point for today’s review. Teamgroup’s DDR4-3600 fills the data rate gap between Mushkin’s DDR4-3200 and G.Skill’s DDR4-3866.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

Test Results And Final Analysis

Mushkin’s DDR4-3200 CAS 20 could have a tough time competing against Teamgroup’s DDR4-3600 and G.Skill’s DDR4-3866 for bandwidth, but we’re really hoping it is also able to prove its worth in our price-to-performance analysis. On the plus side, it is also able to support lower-than-rated timings, though both competitors share that capability.

In the overclocking test, Mushkin’s DDR4-3200 failed the DDR4-3600 stability test after 15 minutes. Dropping the motherboard to a 44x CPU multiplier and 34.66x DRAM ratio, a 103 MHz BCLK brought the Ridgeback kit to a stable DDR4-3570. (For those interested, a 34.66x DRAM ratio uses a 13x memory multiplier with a 4/3 memory controller to CPU BCLK ratio. DDR doubles the data rate of the resulting clock rate.)

The above test also shows a maximum CAS Latency value of 21 cycles. While this did help the Mushkin Redline Ridgeback overclock a little higher, the Trident-Z modules worked better at CAS 19-21-21, hence the (Max) label.

Sandra Memory Bandwidth shows a preference for four-DIMM kits on Kaby Lake (as inherited from Skylake), and the difference has historically been around 10%. Even if we were to reduce the Trident-Z bandwidth numbers by 10%, we can plainly see how its better data rate and better timings would keep it in the lead. Completely removing that bias, the T-Force Xtreme kit has a smaller lead.

Two modules often beat four in Sandra Memory Latency, and we see the T-Force Extreme with the least latency at optimized settings. The Redline Ridgeback kit also has two modules, but its lengthier latency settings put it behind in this measurement.

Our overclocked Core i7-7700K and GTX 1080 provide enough performance that we can finally see the deficits of slower RAM in a racing game, without relying upon low graphics setting that a serious gamer wouldn’t use. The Redline Ridgeback falls behind the T-Force Extreme.

Metro Last Light Redux shows less bias for memory bandwidth or timings, and the T-Force Xtreme DDR4-3600 barely beats the Redline Ridgeback DDR4-3200.

Blender’s CPU render barely responds to improved memory performance, and both the Mushkin DDR4-3200 and Teamgroup DDR4-3600 memory complete the render operation at three minutes, one second, using XMP settings.

File compression applications often benefit from improved memory performance, and the scaling in 7-Zip is quite impressive . . . for everything but the Redline Ridgeback kit.

Redline Ridgeback DDR4-3200 CAS 20 is a little pricey at around $170, which is comparable to the DDR4-3200 CAS 16 of several competitors. Even at its most recently spotted $180, Teamgroup’s DDR4-3600 barely costs a little more.

The last chart, Performance Per Gigabyte, primarily shows that G.Skill’s 4x 8GB set has enough performance to overcome its $30 price premium compared to two of Mushkin’s 2x 8GB sets.

MORE: Best Memory

MORE: DDR DRAM FAQs And Troubleshooting Guide

MORE: All Memory Content

Yet another OEM known for making products other than peripherals is now making peripherals. At CES 2017, Mushkin teased its first gaming keyboard, the Carbon KB-001.  

It seems the company is going for the high-end with the Carbon KB-001, boasting that it’s made of CNC’d and aircraft-grade anodized brushed aluminum, and it stated that the PCB is a double fiberglass design. It enjoys a clean-looking top panel design, and on each side there’s a pair of red grills for, presumably, feet. There’s a permanent, small wrist rest area--a slope all along the front edge of the keyboard.

The Carbon KB-001 offers RGB lighting, and it appears as though there will be a monochrome variant available. Mushkin stated that the keyboard comes with Kailh Brown switches, and from the renders, it looks like those are standard switches, not clear-chassis RGBs. It’s unclear if other switch options will be available.

Other features on the full size 104-key Carbon KB-001 include n-key rollover, a Windows key lock, and a braided fiber cable.

And that’s about all we know for now. We’ve reached out for more information, but the company has so far neglected our repeated overtures. 

Mushkin laid out the early 2017 SSD roadmap from start to finish at CES 2017. In it, we found a heavy dose of Silicon Motion, Inc. (SMI) controllers paired with current and next generation flash technology. The company's role in the foreseeable future is as a value-centric provider of quality components that meet both the performance and price demands of the entry-level and mainstream shoppers.

The sole NVMe product in the lineup comes with "Helix" branding. The drive will ship in 250GB, 500GB, 1TB, and eventually a massive 2TB model. Mushkin will take this SMI SM2260 model to production with Micron 3D MLC NAND flash to increase performance and endurance. The performance specifications show up to 2,600MB/s sequential read and 1,100 MB/s sequential writes. We expect pricing to be competitive with other SM2260 products coming to a congested mainstream NVMe market.

Two existing SATA-based products will receive capacity updates in 2017. The first is the Reactor that we are so fond of in 1TB. The updated model will move the needle to 2TB but still retain a similar price-to-capacity ratio. The Reactor is based on an aging SM2246 controller but utilizes MLC NAND flash that doesn't require low-density parity check (LDPC) code to extent endurance.

The Triactor with the same SM2256 controller will move from 480GB to 960GB at the high end. This is a TLC model that costs less than the Reactor but leans on LDPC to increase endurance. For the most part, the Reactor and Triactor are simple capacity size expansions.

Two new products coming will take advantage of SMI's latest SM2258 controller and 3D flash. The Armor3d is the most exciting, with Micron 3D MLC, 565 MB/s sequential read performance, and a large overprovisioned 2TB capacity size. The overprovisioned space increases performance and should make up for many of the latency issues with first generation Micron 3D MLC.

The Triactor 3D with Micron 384Gbit 3D TLC will utilize the same SM2258 controller and a very large dose of programmed SLC to keep performance very close to the Armor3d. The advantage of this product is a lower price point, but at the expense of sustained write performance.

Mushkin has a well-balanced SSD product lineup going into 2017. We found a mix of new, newer, and newest technologies without a commensurate price increase.

Specifications And Features

Mushkin has quietly built several high-quality solid-state drives in its Texas manufacturing facility. Many of the Mushkin products sit quietly in the shadows and go unnoticed by the majority of users. Armed with a new state of the art manufacturing facility in Mexico, we expect higher output and a new brand push to get the word out about Mushkin Enhanced design and quality.

The Mushkin Triactor ships with an odd pairing. The drives utilize Silicon Motion, Inc.'s (SMI) low-cost SM2256 4-channel controller and SanDisk's 15nm TLC flash. The controller supports advanced low-density parity check (LDPC) error correction and control code, but it's an older version than the company uses on the newer SM2258. We rarely see SanDisk NAND used outside of company branded SSDs, but after the Western Digital acquisition more of the flash has spread to third-party SSD manufacturers.

Mushkin has built SSDs since the first early consumer SSDs came to market. As a memory manufacturer, Mushkin was alongside OCZ, Corsair, Kingston and Patriot with some of the earliest products available, but the company is one of the lower profile builders. Mushkin doesn't have a NAND flash fab or controller IP, so it has a small fraction of the market share compared to the fab-powered companies like Intel and Samsung. However, the company has a reputation for quality at a low price point, and we rarely hear anyone complain about Mushkin products.

Over the last year, the Mushkin Reactor with MLC flash has been on and off our Best SSDs list. The drive delivers a nice user experience at a price that is hard to overlook. The Triactor with TLC NAND looks to follow the same path. It utilizes quality components with an advanced cost-saving design and dedicated manufacturing. In some respects, the Triactor is a sleeper, but it's time to sound the alarm clock. 

Technical Specifications

The Mushkin Triactor ships in a number of configurations that range from 120GB to 500GB. Mushkin announced a 1TB product, but we've never seen it listed for sale. In the chart above, we listed the standard 7% overprovisioning capacities of 120GB, 240GB, and 480GB. Mushkin also offers a few oddball sizes (250GB and 500GB) with less overprovisioning but nearly identical performance.

As mentioned, the Triactor users an older 4-channel SMI SM2256 controller designed for TLC flash. This was Silicon Motion's first TLC-specific controller. The SM2258 succeeded the SM2256, but came with support for Flash Forward (Toshiba and SanDisk) and IMFT (Intel and Micron) 3D TLC NAND. By using older technology, Mushkin was able to reduce the price of the Triactor series without sacrificing performance.

This is also one of the rare third-party products to ship with SanDisk flash. Our drives arrived prior to the Western Digital acquisition, but since the takeover, we've heard about more companies gaining access to the premium planar flash. Mushkin chose 15nm TLC for this product. Many of Mushkin's products span multiple NAND lithography nodes, so it's possible the company purchased a large amount of flash at a discounted price and the Triactor will have a variable build of materials.

Performance tips the scale at 560 MB/s sequential read and up to 515 MB/s sequential write on the two capacities that we have in for testing. The 120GB model musters 380 MB/s in the sequential write category. The write performance quoted by Mushkin is only 'up to' due to the 3-bit per cell NAND flash. The random performance comes in at 85,000/87,000 read/write IOPS for the 480GB model. The smaller drives see a slight reduction, as specified in the chart.

The Triactor series does not support hardware encryption. In this price class we often overlook the feature and many users on this end of the pricing scale that have access to the feature do not use it.

Pricing

We only found a few Triactor SSDs for sale at Newegg and Amazon. The 480GB and 240GB drives we are testing sell for $112 and $70, respectively. The 250GB drive sells for $70 and the new 500GB tips the scales at $120.

Warranty And Endurance

The Triactor ships with a limited 3-year warranty that Mushkin capped with a Terabytes Written (TBW) clause. The TBW rating serves as a general indication of how much data you can write to the drive before the warranty expires. The 120GB drive features a 58TBW rating, which is one of the lowest we've seen on a retail SSD. The rating increases to 115TBW on the 240GB and 250GB SSDs and moves up the scale to 230TBW for the 480GB and 500GB Triactor SSDs.

Packaging

Mushkin used a low-cost blister pack to ship the Triactor, so it ships as a bare drive. This helps to keep costs low for end users.

A Closer Look

Other than the odd pairing of SM2256 and SanDisk 15nm TLC flash, the Triactor is a fairly basic SSD like many of the other products that compete in the low-cost market.

Mushkin's parent company, Avant Technology, always comes up with interesting ways to reduce manufacturing costs without reducing quality. Avant built the Triactor’s edge connector into the printed circuit board. Avant saves a few cents per drive by extending the edge out and embedding the SATA power and data connectors. This design also increases device integrity by removing the fragile plastic soldered component.

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

Comparisons And Benchmarks

Comparison Products

We lined the Mushkin Triactor up against a handful of entry-level and mainstream TLC-based SSDs. The Samsung 850 EVO 500GB is on the upper end of the scale, and it's South Korean counterpart, the Sk Hynix SL308, also features a 500GB capacity point. The Crucial MX300 525GB sits just under the mainstream bracket with the Intel 540s 480GB and the 540s 480GB.

Sequential Read Performance

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.

The Triactor series is about value rather than performance. We always like to get an equal dose of both or at the least a solid mix of the two. The Triactor series is very attractive when it has a lower price than the other products on the chart. At queue depth 2, the Triactor performs well, but many of the more expensive drives outdo it. We have to pay close attention of the Triactor and OCZ Trion 150 because these two drives often compete for the lowest price on Newegg and Amazon.

Sequential Write Performance

The sequential write performance with the 3-bit per cell flash produces a wavy result due to the SLC buffer flushing data to the TLC portion of the NAND. The Triactor's performance is high for the first few minutes of a write workload, but then it drops down to native TLC write speeds.

Sustained Sequential Write Performance

We write 128K sequential data to the entire LBA range of the drive during these tests. The full-span test allows us to see how much data we can write to the SLC area, and also the performance after the buffer is full. The Triactor does not utilize a direct-to-die write scheme, which circumvents the SLC buffer when it is full, so the sustained sequential write performance is lower than many of the newer TLC-based products. The Triactor 480GB model delivers enough performance to write data at real-time speeds over a gigabit Ethernet connection. The Triactor 240GB will deliver around 85 MB/s, which is 20% less than a gigabit LAN connection.

Random Read Performance

Both Triactor SSDs outperform the Trion 150 and Intel 540s in low-QD small-block random reads. This is an important measurement for game launches and the overall user experience. Many Windows operations consist of random reads and writes, and most consumer workloads tend to read more than write.

Random Write Performance

The SLC buffer does a good job caching many of the small block size writes, but the Triactor uses only a small, fixed amount of space to catch the writes. Our testing overfills the buffer, so the results come out as a wavy line, which shows a mix of cached and native TLC random write performance.

80 Percent Mixed Sequential Workload

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

The SMI SM2256 controller was never known for excellent mixed workload performance, but we've found it to be suitable considering the price of the products it's used in. The 480GB Triactor provides better performance than the 240GB model because it uses twice as many NAND packages. The additional NAND packages allow the controller to use twice as many CE (Chip Enable) bonds per channel to boost parallelism, and thus performance.

80 Percent Mixed Random Workload

The high random performance slumps during the mixed workload tests (mid-way through the queue depth scale). At lower queue depths, the Triactor fares much better. The series outperforms many of the other products by a small margin. 

Sequential Steady-State

Most users will not force entry-level SSDs into steady state conditions, but it's much easier to drop into native TLC write speeds because of the small SLC buffer. Compared to SSDs with equal capacity (512GB and 480GB), the Triactor still puts up a good fight with an 80% sequential read workload.

Random Steady-State

Common sense tells us not to use the Triactor SSDs in RAID due to the small SLC buffer and low native-TLC write performance. The random 4K steady-state chart backs up the assumption. These drives don't deliver consistent random performance, nor a high average measurement, either. The Trion 150 is the only product that dives lower, but many of the products on the chart feature better performance consistency.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

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

The Mushkin Triactor 480GB compares well to the drives we've selected for the test pool. The drive doesn't fall to the bottom of the test results, but it doesn't show up at the top very often, either.

Application Storage Bandwidth

We combine the results and average them into a tidy throughput score to make it easier to compare performance in a wide range of real-world applications. The Triactor SSDs deliver higher performance than the OCZ Trion 150 480GB, Intel SSD 540s 480GB, and Sk Hynix SL308 500GB. It doesn't come as a surprise to see the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB at the top of the chart, but the Crucial MX300 525GB is the shock of the day. We expected the Triactor to outperform the MX300, but that didn't happen in the 512GB-class.

The Triactor 240GB did surprise us by outperforming some of the other products. The controller doesn't allocate a lot of NAND capacity for the SLC buffer, but it is efficient.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

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

We only focus on the recovery results with low-cost SSDs. The Samsung 850 EVO 500GB delivers the best performance, and that shouldn't surprise anyone at this point. The Mushkin Triactor 240GB is a distant second in throughput performance. The 480GB model suffers a different fate and trails all of the other drives in the chart until it has more recovery time. The test results reveal a lower-than-ideal controller clock speed, or at the very least, a slower memory management engine that needs more time to clean dirty cells.

Total Service Time

The Triactor 240GB delivers very good service times compared to many of the TLC-based alternatives on the market, and it even delivers under heavier workloads. The recovery performance could be a little higher, but it's at a severe disadvantage compared to the much larger drives.

The Triactor 480GB doesn't fare well in these tests when we analyze the service time results. We think the drive initiates the garbage collection and wear leveling schemes and doesn't stop until the entire task is complete. Other SSDs use this method as well, but without a better understanding of how the firmware works, we can't be completely confident that it is the root of the problem.

Disk Busy Time

The disk busy time results seem to back our theory of the forced background activity. Once triggered, the processes run and don't stop until the cells are clean. The processes reduce both read and write performance while the controller spends vital CPU clock cycles managing the background cleanup operations.

Notebook Battery Life

Both Triactor SSDs deliver average notebook battery life performance. There are not any surprises here. Users get better-than-HDD battery life, but some SSDs are better suited for notebook use.

Conclusion

Mushkin is one of the SSD companies that just plugs along making quality products without a lot of positive recognition. The company has never had a recall or emergency firmware release to fix a destructive data bug. The Mushkin SSDs usually sell for less than many competing products with a similar hardware configuration, but if you don't know to look for the Mushkin brand, you might overlook a diamond in the rough.

Mushkin occasionally releases a high-performance SSD, but most of its success stories come in the form of entry-level products that don't garner a lot of attention regardless of how high the quality is. The Triactor serves as an excellent example. It utilizes premium SanDisk flash that the manufacturer packaged, and it has sensible cost-reduction technologies that don't have a negative impact on the user experience.

Mushkin's choice of SanDisk flash is wise; it is the same as Toshiba's planar NAND and only takes a backseat to Samsung's planar NAND. The SanDisk 15nm TLC outperforms Micron 16nm TLC and Intel 20nm. The decision to use the older SM2256 controller instead of the newer SM2258 is another move to reduce costs. In our testing, the newer SM2258 doesn't bring much to the table with the planar NAND that Mushkin used with the Triactor. SMI primarily designed the SM2258 to add support for 3D NAND.

It would be interesting to find a similar combination of SM2258 and Toshiba 15nm MLC in a 480GB SSD to investigate if the newer controller reduces the recovery time. As long as you don't write a lot of data at one time, the high service time shouldn't be an issue. Idle time is the key to keeping the drive feeling fresh, along with not filling the Triactor to the brim with data.

The Triactor is about pricing, though. The Triactor 480GB SSD retails for just $112 online. The 240GB model is $70, so we feel users should spend the additional $40 to get the larger SSD. At these low price points, there isn't a reason to keep using a platter-based drive for anything other than cold storage. These entry-level SSDs offer a surprising amount of performance per dollar. If you need more than 480GB of space for games or other application data, you should consider adding one as a secondary volume. Then you can install your software on the non-boot drive to keep performance high on both the OS and secondary volume.

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

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Giving Gamers Some Flare

Zen, oh Zen, when will you get here? AMD enthusiasts are chomping at the bit for the latest and greatest from Advanced Micro Devices, and we are about to lose our minds. Rather than cry myself to sleep waiting for the boards to arrive, I decided to look at the many other boards that are relevant to my interests. In response to my previous article, many people asked, "Why would anyone drop money on such an old chipset?" Well, some people are just getting into the PC-building hobby; others are replacing broken hardware, and some just love AMD products and want to spend more of their money on other components.

After exiting the time machine from my trip to 2013 for my 990FX review, I saw that FedEx left a suspicious package on my doorstep. Lo and behold, Asus had sent me an AMD product to review: the Asus 970 Pro Gaming/Aura board. Queue the comments section: "This isn't even the top-of-the-line AMD chipset; why would you waste your time on this thing?" Being an enthusiast and always in search of knowledge and experience, I found this product offered a perfect opportunity to expand my knowledge of board manufacturers as well as introduce some more components and tests to my bench that the comment section desperately desired.

Specifications

MORE: Best MotherboardsMORE: 
How To Choose A MotherboardMORE: All Motherboard Content

The Asus 970 Pro Gaming/Aura board was announced back in January and aims to bring value to the budget builder by including the SB950 south bridge in the 970 chipset. With this addition, most of the features that we see in our 990FX reviews are given new homes in this everyday platform. Just glancing over the specification sheet makes me curious how these changes help this platform stack up against some of the competition.

The packaging of this box reminded me of some higher-end boards, with a highly polished style along with a mixture of colors, gloss and minimalist branding adorning the edges. Upon opening the package, though, I found that the contents were sparse: a padded backplate, an installation CD, a user manual, two SATA cables and some zip ties for all of my cable-bundling needs. Sure, I'd like more SATA cables or maybe an Asus sticker, but no need to include that when all I'm looking for is some decent performance at a good price.

Walking my way around the board, the back panel includes one PS/2 port, eight USB 2.0 ports, two USB 3.1 ports and one gigabit Ethernet port. SPDIF and six-channel audio output provide ample audio connectivity for a wide variety of speaker configurations. Along the back of the PCB are the Realtek ALC1150 audio chip and Nichicon capacitors, with a bead of illumination riding along the top of the shielding.

The south side of the board contains all of the usual suspects for case connections, with two USB2.0, one USB3.1 and one four-pin chassis fan headers. A nice surprise for this product is the inclusion of an M.2 SSD port for those builders who want to have NVMe-connected storage plugged into the mix.

I appreciated the inclusion of six angled SATA 3.0 connectors on the front edge of the board to help eliminate cables going across the motherboard, though I would have preferred them to be a few more millimeters off the edge. Another four-pin chassis fan header as well as a USB3.1 header hug the edge of the board along with the power-supply connector and memory slots.

The topside of the board sports three four-pin fan headers, which is a pleasant addition. The intention was to give users who utilize water-cooling reservoirs convenient access to the topside of the case, and also to make it possible for dual-fan heat-sink configurations to be PWM-controlled. 

As the product name suggests, this board gives off an aura of light when powered on. You can program this feature through the UEFI, and it can output several different color options. Along with the south bridge, the SupremeFX chip glows, and this board begs to be in a windowed case. If you don't need the lights, you can disable this option and place the board into a standard, boring case. Bah, humbug. 

BIOS

Digging around in the UEFI on this board was a pleasant experience and provided a mix of many of the other manufacturers' experiences in one package. When the UEFI first loads, I am presented with a dashboard-like home page that resembles the MSI tachometer UI. I am also two clicks away from the Advanced mode, which enables menu selection similar to that found on the ASRock and Gigabyte BIOS.

For the purposes of this article, I spent most of my time in Advanced mode, and again I was greeted with familiar features. The clock multiplier options once again caught me off guard, as they require manual input of the number or pressing the +/- keys when highlighting the field. When selecting voltage settings, Asus enables the user to access either absolute-setting mode or offset mode, which allows you to reach the appropriate voltage settings to obtain the desired overclock. I'll talk more about overclocking later, but I was very happy to have a lot of options in my attempt at ringing out performance. 

How We Test

I decided to ditch the DDR3-1600 modules from Mushkin due to the requests by the commenters on my previous articles, and searched the labs for an appropriate alternative. Fortunately, Thomas had finished looking at a 2800MHz kit from Klevv in his DDR3 vs. DDR4 article, and he had access to the 2666MHz variant. Two 8GB kits now fully populate my test system.

The main downside to this addition is that these kits also emit an aura of their own. In order to implement the diodes, they have a taller heat spreader than standard DIMMs, and those force me to reverse the orientation of my CPU cooler. This isn't too big of a deal, but it did prove to be an airflow challenge when overclocking this specimen.  

To keep these Vishera cores cool, a Sunbeamtech cooler is utilized to provide maximum air-cooling capacity across all of my AMD test platforms. Zalman's ZM-STG1 paste is used as the thermal compound for this test platform. 

It might not be the latest generation, but the Radeon HD 7970 has enough performance to play the latest games at decent settings. It's heavy and it draws a lot of power, which makes it a good candidate for testing the power subsystem of my test samples.

Even with these power-hungry components, this 500W, 80 Plus Gold-certified power supply has no problem keeping the system going with constant power while running the standard test suite and individual stress tests.  However, these components will draw a little more than 500W of power when running both Prime95 and FurMark.  Note to self: When conducting a 100 percent stress test, get more power!

The Mushkin Chronos SSD is still running strong in this AMD test system, so I will continue to use that disc. We are still finalizing our Windows 10 test image across our reviewing teams, so I am still using my same hard disk image from my previous review. However, I did implement two game benchmarks to please the crowd and provide some reference points to compare against previous writers' suites.

Test System Configuration

Benchmark Settings

One final note about my configuration: I ran all of these benchmarks in DDR3-2133MHz mode. I did this intentionally, to show how much of a performance increase we will see in the synthetics, while demonstrating that this doesn't play out as well in the applications.

Comparison Motherboards

Test Results And Conclusion

After installing all of my components, I performed a mini stress test to confirm that my processor and configuration are situated properly. I like to have my case closed so that I can simulate a true system-power-draw scenario. When I launched FurMark and let it run for about 5 minutes, I noticed the power draw was fluctuating significantly. 

Glancing at my screen, I noticed that the utilization of the GPU was throttling and the screen would turn sluggish during the run. HWMonitor was, in fact, showing instances where the GPU was hitting a high-temp scenario, and rather than just ramp up fans, the firmware would decrease the utilization in an attempt to reduce power. Being a curious builder, I decided to remove the side of the case to see if the case's airflow was the issue.  Sure enough, after another 5 minutes the GPU was throttling less and the power-draw measurements were becoming much more consistent. I suspect that the airflow in my case was severely reduced when I rotated the heat sink to accommodate for the taller memory heat spreaders. By having the heat sink fan right next to the exhaust fan probably created an airflow disturbance, which decreased the effectiveness of the exhaust fan. #themoreyouknow

Right off the bat, PCMark's bundled benchmark results are consistent across chipsets regardless of the memory configuration. I also see similar results with Sandra Arithmetic and Multimedia and a decent increase in the Cryptography benchmark. Memory bandwidth is higher, as I expected, with about a 28 percent increase. 

From the applications perspective, I am not surprised at the overall performance between the 990FX boards and the Asus 970 Pro Gaming/Aura. A couple seconds here, a couple seconds there—each board trades shots with the others. A minor trend I see is that the MSI 990FXA and the Asus 970 Pro Gaming show improved CPU performance in OpenCL and multithreaded encoding tasks. The only major delta I observed is After Effects, which according to the documentation requires 2GB RAM per core. With 16GB, we finally hit the recommended spec with this platform, so keep that in mind if it is a primary application being run by the user. 

Game Synthetics And Macros

The gaming benchmarks show a welcome delta between the boards. From the Asus 970 Pro Gaming perspective, 3DMark11 shows nearly a 2 percentage point win for combined scores, and default Fire Strike outperforms its competitors by nearly 7 percentage points. However, Fire Strike Extreme puts all of these systems in their place, knocking any deltas to less than 1 percentage point.

The Lone Wanderer has made his way to my test bench, and after over 100 hours of gameplay, I know exactly where I want to collect some performance data. To test Fallout 4, I picked a strip of road outside Hangman's Alley on a sunny day. I recorded a 50-second run along the road, including an encounter with some Super Mutants. Ambient nature, shadows, and a couple of laser blasts and explosions hit a good mix of graphical stress that represents a fairly decent worst-case scenario. With settings at the Ultra preset (including Ultra god rays), I hit a minimum frame rate of 22.4 and average right at 29.6. Do note, this is not the same benchmark that Igor ran for his Fallout 4 piece and my results are quite a bit lower than his. His benchmark is more of an expected use-case scenario with this card, whereas mine is a more pessimistic test.

Battlefield 4 is starting to show its age, but it still is a decent representation of graphical performance regardless of hardware.  The Asus 970 Pro Gaming/Aura ran the Tashgar intro sequence at an average frame rate of 52 and only dipped down to 41 a few times on the drive into the city.  If enough people ask, I can retest both of the 990FX boards with these two games as well.

Overclocking, Power And Performance

The Asus 970 board definitely shows some improvements in the power department compared with the 990FX competition. At idle, the system is consuming 13 percent less power than the average, 9 percent below average for Prime95 and runs right in line with the MSI board for the GPU torture test. 

Remember those really tall heat sinks on the memory? They forced me to rotate the heat sink and put the fan in a position to pull air across the heat sink, which is not optimal in my case. The data corroborates this statement with an extra 15 degrees of processor temperature.

With power, performance and temperature data taken into consideration, it is clear that the Asus 970 Pro Gaming/Aura packs a punch, and does so with a smaller power footprint. The performance values might be slightly skewed by the Sandra memory bandwidth result, but power is power. 

Full disclosure: this board was overclocked differently than the other samples, so I will not compare my results directly to them. However, I am pleased with what I was able to achieve. At the beginning, I tried matching the previous systems' results and was unable to hit 4300MHz with default settings and previously recorded voltages. The system would boot and run but would still generate hardware errors while running Prime95. Digging deeper into the BIOS, I switched to the Medium load line setting, upped the voltage to 1.375V, and was able to run Prime95 for a bit before hitting a Worker 6 rounding error. In order to hit 4400 MHz, I had to engage the High load line setting and increase the voltage to 1.3875V to hit a 100 percent stable overclock. Even using the higher load line setting, the thermals of the processor were below 75C and power draw was right at 300W, which I feel is safe enough for prolonged use. As always, take caution when overclocking—I am not responsible for damaged hardware!

Seeing the delta in DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2133 benchmark scores, I didn't push the voltages of these DIMMs  for extra performance. I attempted to increase the frequency using stock settings to 2400MHz, but the system would not boot. I was able to decrease the timings to 9-11-11-31 while at 2133MHz, which is nearly close to stock DDR3-1600 timings. Overall, I was pleased with the breadth of timing options and the quality of these Klevv kits.

Value And Conclusion

As I stated earlier, this 970 sample was not tested to the same standards as the 990FX samples I previously reviewed, so extracting a fair value comparison would not be fair for the previous boards. However, as the performance chart shows, this 970 board edges out its bigger brothers when using the DDR3-2133 settings. Even taking that into consideration, having a lower price than the 990FXs gives the advantage to the Asus 970 Pro Gaming/Aura from a value standpoint. I would make an educated guess that the 990FX boards would perform similarly with the higher speed RAM, but efficiency and other features still go to the Asus.

Do I like the 970 chipset? Sure, it is a good, value-oriented option for builders who still want options. With SLI and CrossFire available in an 8x/8x configuration, this platform has some longevity in it as long as you are committed to the AM3+ socket. This board includes a great number of features and higher-end options at this cheaper price point, making it an excellent rival to the 990FX brethren.

MORE: Best MotherboardsMORE: 
How To Choose A Motherboard: A Guide For Beginners
MORE: Motherboards in the Forums

Jacob Terkelsen is an Associate Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware, covering Motherboards.

Follow us on Twitter @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Specifications, Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

The Mushkin Reactor 1TB is one of the best-value SATA 6-Gbps SSDs on the market today. The drive sells for less than $280 and has held that mark for several quarters. The drive maintains its position with MLC NAND flash while being surrounded by similarly priced SSDs armed with inferior 3-bit per cell (TLC) NAND. With superior flash, the Reactor 1TB sustains high write speeds, making it ideal for gamers looking for large flash capacity at a low price.

Initially, Mushkin released Reactor in only one capacity: 1TB. Later, a 512GB model with similar performance specifications came to market. Not long after that, the company released a 256GB Reactor but with lower performance due to limited parallel flash utilization.

Today, we're testing the smallest Reactor, to see how it compares to other low-cost SSDs. The Reactor 256GB is one of just a few remaining low-cost MLC products still available, as others, such as the Crucial BX200, shift to TLC.

Technical Specifications

MORE: Best SSDs For The Money 
MORE: Latest Storage News 
MORE: Storage in the Forums

The Reactor 256GB SSD's only drawback is its lower sequential write speed. This model still reads at 560MB/s but delivers up to 325MB/s sequential write performance. The two larger models achieve up to 460MB/s. The Reactor 256GB also has slightly lower random write performance, but the small difference shouldn't be noticeable under normal desktop workloads.

At the heart of all Reactor Series SSDs is a Silicon Motion SM2246EN four-channel processor. This model has been on the market for well over a year now, but in the budget-SSD market, older is better. The Reactor is a throwback model originally designed for mainstream applications. Mushkin uses in-house NAND packaging and innovative manufacturing techniques to lower the price into the value SSD range.

The Reactor uses 16nm Micron flash that was purchased in wafers. Mushkin handles the bin process as well as packaging. This also allows Mushkin to reduce manufacturing costs. The non-SSD-grade flash can go into thumb drives and other similar products, leaving the high-quality flash for SSDs.

Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

We're starting to see 256GB SSDs selling in the low $60 range. Right now the Reactor 256GB sells for $84.99. At that price it's not as attractive as the 512GB and 1TB Reactor models that lead in their capacity classes. Mushkin may address the 256GB price later with a reduction to bring it in line with other SSDs selling today.

The Reactor has a three-year warranty but does not include any accessories or a software package.

A Closer Look

There isn't anything special about the retail package for this series. To shave costs as much as possible, Mushkin used a blister pack that only includes a show card for effect and the drive.

From the outside, the Reactor 256GB is just as unremarkable as the retail blister pack. It does use a 7mm Z-height design, so it fits in Ultrabooks and notebooks that require the slimmer design.

Upon first inspection, the Reactor looks like any other SSD. They are all pretty much the same from this angle, with little variation in layout and only component differences. The connector is special on the Reactor, though. Parent company Avant Technology designer Paul Goodwin is responsible for this change. The PCB is the SATA power and data connector. This saves on BOM (build of materials) costs and provides better signal integrity than a separate connector that needs to be soldered to the board.

Mushkin chose Silicon Motion's SM2246EN four-channel controller as the base of the Reactor. Silicon Motion allows companies to provide input on the firmware, so each company has something a bit different. Many of the existing products with this controller have been discontinued and replaced with new SMI SM2256 controllers and TLC NAND flash. That's what makes the Reactor 256GB special now. Mushkin doesn't plan to discontinue this product line anytime soon.

We are still on the fence about third-party NAND flash packaging, as it doesn't allow us to verify what flash is used. Mushkin tells us that it uses genuine Micron flash from wafers.

Four-Corner Performance Testing

Comparison Products

Nearly all of the drives on this chart utilize TLC NAND flash with write enhancement technology to deliver high burst speeds that are not sustainable for more than a few seconds. The Samsung SSD 850 EVO is the current midmarket performance leader. Its quad-plane TLC flash breaks the mold and delivers longer sustained write speeds than other TLC SSDs shipping with flash from Toshiba and Micron. The Plextor M6V is a newer model that uses the same playbook as the Reactor. The M6V uses the SMI SM2246EN controller like the Reactor but pairs it with Toshiba's 15-nm MLC flash.

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

The differences between the drives however, have no affect on the read perimeter tests, as observed in the set of charts above. Sequential random performance is high across the board for all of the drives. The Reactor 256GB isn't as fast as most of the other models at low queue depths in this measurement, but it does operate at higher speeds with larger block sizes.

Sequential Write

The sequential write performance is at the lower end of the scale as well compared to most of the other low-cost SSDs. The Adata SP550 and the OCZ Trion 100 have slow buffer flushes to TLC NAND, so the results are inconsistent, much like their write performance.

We get a good look at the difference between Micron's 16-nm MLC and Toshiba's new 15-nm MLC flash with the SM2246EN controller. The Toshiba flash used in the Plextor M6V 256GB is roughly 40MB/s faster. The M6V does cost more than the Reactor, though. Both drives are still in the midrange of sequential write performance, with the SanDisk Ultra II and Samsung 850 EVO earning high marks.

Random Read

The Mushkin Reactor 256GB delivers nearly 8,000 random read IOPS at queue depth 1 with 4KB of data. We like to see 10,000 IOPS in this test from high performance drives, but there isn't an established standard for low-cost SSDs. The Samsung SSD 850 EVO does manage to achieve that high mark at a low price, though. That's part of the reason it's the standard by which all other low and mid-priced SSDs are measured.

Random Write

The Plextor M6V 256GB and the Reactor 256GB have nearly the same 4KB random write curve as the drives ramp up from queue depth 1 to queue depth 8. The Reactor is faster than the Ultra II in this test past queue depth 2 and much faster than the Trion 100 and the SP550. The Trion 100 performs a little better with compressible data but not well enough to make up the distance between it and the Reactor.

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.

Mixed-workload tests give us a clearer picture of how a drive will perform in your computer. A computer system rarely just reads or just writes data, unless used as a secondary volume to store mass data. Under this view, the Reactor shows fare performance, but it still falls well short of the Samsung 850 EVO 250GB.

80 Percent Random Mixed Workload

The same 80 percent mix of read-to-data writes with random 4KB data shows the same picture. The Reactor 256GB performance is right in the middle, where we expect to find it based on price data.

Sequential Steady State

Under normal conditions, users will never achieve full steady state with a client-grade SSD. Client workloads are not stressful enough to drive this level of performance. As the drive fills up, performance drops off because the drive is struggling to find clean cells that will keep write performance high.

We also get to see an exaggerated bathtub curve here of mixed sequential performance and how some drives handle mixed data better than others.

Random Write Steady State

The 4KB random-write test in steady state shows us two important measurements that have very little to do with the actual output. The first thing we look for is performance consistency—a nice steady line of IOPS with a very narrow gap between high and low points. The SM2246EN controller was clearly not designed for enterprise workloads, so the peaks and valleys are far apart. We also look at the low IOPS, because putting a pair of these drives in RAID 0 to equal the performance of another drive is a step in the wrong direction. We don't recommend that you use the Reactor 256GB in RAID 0 for performance benefits.

Real-World Software Performance

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

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

In this section, we see how the previous tests present in real-world workloads. Much like in the other tests, the Mushkin Reactor 256GB falls in the middle to the bottom of each application test chart.

Looking at the same tests, but combined and as throughput, the Reactor doesn't fair as well. We're surprised to see it delivering lower application performance than the SP550, a drive using TLC NAND flash. None of the tests involve installing large games, an area in which the Reactor would separate itself from the TLC models.

There is also a large gap between the Reactor and the Plextor M6V 256GB with the same controller. Toshiba NAND flash has long outshone Micron flash, and that has carried over to the smallest lithography nodes from each company.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

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

The advanced set of tests use the same software loads as in the previous section and output the results in throughput. The test starts by preconditioning the drive to achieve steady state. Then the application workload starts and runs without interruption until the recovery phase. Going into the recovery phase, the drive being tested gets 5 minutes of idle time to perform background flash-management activities, like garbage collection. 

The recovery phase is what we're looking at for this price range of products, and it represents the level of performance you will see after an extended period of use. Again, the Reactor stays in the middle of the chart. The ADATA SP550 with the new Silicon Motion SM2256 controller designed for TLC flash performs in the same space as the Samsung 850 EVO.

Total Access Time

Things go from poor but acceptable to just poor when we look at the total access time. This test takes latency into account and gives us greater insight into the user experience. Under very heavy loads, the 256GB Reactor stumbles, but the test looks much better under normal client workloads. 

Notebook Battery Life

Latency builds on top of latency when one request has to wait on another to complete. The demons from the previous set of tests carry over to the notebook battery life test. The two larger Reactor models both performed at the top of the list against drives with similar capacity. The 512GB model delivered just over 687 minutes of on-battery time. The extra latency means the drive has to work longer before dropping down to idle, power-saving states. This hurts battery life and is the reason regular four-corner power measurements do not mean less power consumption over time.

Conclusion

After looking at the test results, you may discard the Reactor and consider it a poor product. The 256GB model doesn't have the same value as the two larger-capacity models, failing to offer mainstream performance at an entry-level price. But we do see some potential here.

The low queue depth random performance hurts the Reactor 256GB's value as an operating system drive, but the high sequential performance, especially compared to most TLC-based drives, gives this model life as secondary storage to install games on. Mushkin billed the Reactor as a model designed for gamers, and that user group will benefit the most from MLC over TLC with SLC cache. When you install games that are now up to 50+ GB in size, you want the high sustained-sequential-write speed and not a tiny buffer that quickly falls to less than HDD levels.

Further saving the Reactor is the fact that most new low-cost SSDs will ship with TLC. The longer Mushkin keeps this model around, the better it will look for the target audience. Micron and Toshiba are not planning to build quad-plane TLC flash, so anything using TLC from either company will find lower than HDD sequential-write performance. Samsung, on the other hand, has a real gem with the 850 EVO. It's the drive all others must undercut on price in order to compete today.

As it sits right now, both the Reactor 256GB and the 850 EVO 250GB sit right at $90. That's a bad place for the Reactor 256GB and again shows how Samsung is turning the screws on other SSD manufacturers. For the Reactor 256GB to compete with entry-level drives, like Mushkin does with the larger-capacity versions, the price needs to first get into entry-level territory.

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+.

Mushkin is an old-school gaming-focused company that has a long history and many fans of its products. The company's memory products were once considered a staple for overclockers, but in recent years the solid-state products have come to the surface and become main products in the stable.

Mushkin plans to release several new products in 2016 and will bring many to market with new 3D flash memory from Micron, Intel, Toshiba and SK Hynix. One of the first products we'll see is a larger capacity Reactor. The Reactor 1 TB currently sits on our Best SSDs chart for its large capacity size and very low price. Reactor will expand in 2016 to 2 TB with new 3D flash memory, but we may also see a special 4 TB model at some point.

The 4 TB Reactor will pair two Silicon Motion, Inc. SM2246EN controllers behind a JMicron RAID controller. The company told us it will still try to target the 25-cents-per-gigabyte mark like the current Reactor products, but time will tell. Flash is a volatile market with many ups and downs.

We don't have any timeline or performance details but suspect the new dual-controller drive will suffer from low random performance due to the low-cost JMicron JMS562 eSATA to dual SATA bridge used to RAID the two SMI controllers. Still, with 4 TB on tap, we would love to fill a 10GbE connected NAS with these drives and give it a go.

Mushkin's Phison S10-controlled drive, Striker, will also see its capacity double in 2016. After overprovisioning that increases performance, the Striker SSD will scale up to 1920 GB. This gives Mushkin a high performance SATA SSD in the 2 TB capacity class product range. This too will rely on 3D flash from several vendors.

Mushkin plans to release two 3-bit per cell SSDs in early 2016. The first shown above, Triactor (get it?) will use an SMI SM2256 controller and TLC flash. This model will ship worldwide and should sell for even less than the Reactor that is already one of the lowest cost SSDs sold today.

The Mushkin ECO3 will be a Newegg Exclusive but will use nearly the same configuration as the Triactor. When companies list products exclusively with Newegg, the reseller will chip in with some extra promotion. Having the ECO3 highlighted in email blasts and giving preferred placement on the site will help it become a popular product for those looking to save some money with TLC flash products. 

It seems that every company has a prototype E7 drive around to show off. The Phison E7 is gearing up for a big launch with products coming from several companies including Mushkin. This will be an almost SF-2281-like launch, but that is great news for consumers looking for a great SSD at an even better price. Mushkin has shown the E7 a number of times, so there really isn't anything new from the company about the drive. Phison did state that the E7 should ship in retail around March of this year. This will bring NVMe technology to a wider audience because the drives should cost less than Intel's SSD 750 and Samsung's 950 Pro, the two shipping NVMe protocol products currently shipping in volume for client workloads.

Mushkin has joined the ranks of SSD manufacturers offering M.2 SSDs. Mushkin designed the Atlas Vital for Ultrabooks, notebooks and small form factor SSDs, which is the standard fare for this type of drive. The 6 Gbps SATA Atlas Vital comes in the 2280 form factor, denoting that it measures 22 x 80 mm in length and width, and sports the oh-so-familiar SandForce SF-2000 series controller.

The trusty SandForce 2000-series controllers have been around for a long time, but they still manage to deliver enough performance for the majority of workloads. SF-2000 series controllers do not require DRAM, which is important in the M.2 space because it reduces the number of components on the PCB, thus leaving room for other components - such as more NAND. The lack of a DRAM buffer also helps insulate the SSD from data loss during unexpected power loss, and reduces cost and design complexity.

The Atlas Vital comes in capacities of 120, 240, 250, 480 and 500 GB and provides up to 86,000 4K random read IOPS. There is no indication of the random write performance, but we do know the SSD weighs in with 550/535 MBps of sequential read/write speed.

Mushkin is one of the few SSD manufacturers that actually packages its own NAND. The company receives NAND in wafers and cuts them down to size, and then packages the die for its SSDs. Many third-party SSD vendors are forced to buy pre-packaged NAND, which is costly and exposes them to supply and pricing turbulence. Mushkin indicated the Atlas employs MLC NAND, but it did not specify what type or from what vendor.

Previous generations of the Mushkin Atlas series featured mSATA designs, but quick industry adoption of the M.2 standard makes the inclusion of M.2 models inevitable for all SSD vendors. The Atlas Vital SSDs feature the 6 Gbps SATA interface, and for those in search of more performance, there isn't going to be a long wait. Mushkin has its Hyperion SSD waiting in the wings and already demoed prototypes at CES 2015. The Hyperion is built with a Phison E7-based PCIe 3.0 x4 controller, which pushes out up to 2.8/1.2 GBps sequential read/write speeds and up to 300,000 random IOPS.

The Atlas Vital is shipping now, and we have included the current pricing in the chart above. We caution readers that SSD pricing is volatile, and we encourage you to check prices over several days to find the best deal. The SSDs only come with a three-year warranty, which is common in the M.2 market.

Paul Alcorn is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware, covering Storage. Follow him on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

The usurpation of DDR3 as the most common type of system memory by DDR4 isn't far off, but DDR3 still has life in it. Mushkin's new enthusiast ECO2 DDR3 RAM is designed for overclocking, which should help extend the DDR3's performance even more.

The ECO2 memory features fairly standard clock speeds and latency. The RAM is clocked at 1600 MHz, with either CL9 or CL11 timings. The voltage is lower than the standard DDR3 kit, however, at 1.35 V.

Although the clock speed isn't exceptional right off, by raising the voltage up to the standard 1.5 V, the RAM should have more overclocking headroom than the typical DDR3 RAM kit. Stamped aluminum heatsinks are utilized to cool the RAM and should also allow for increased overclocking ability.

Mushkin stated that each RAM module is hand-tested in motherboards before being shipped out, and the company offers a lifetime warranty. Though it is almost certain that occasionally a bad memory module will slip through (there isn't a company in the industry who can claim 100 percent non-DOA RAM) these tests should help reduce the number of modules that are shipped DOA. In addition, if one is found to be bad, the memory should be replaced without charge.

"We are excited to offer our newest ECO2 product, the ECO2 memory line for budget-conscious enthusiasts who want to maximize their gaming and user experience," said Brian Flood, Director of Product Development at Mushkin. "The success of our ECO2 SSDs proved to us that users are not just looking for another run-of-the-mill SSD or memory module, which is why we developed something more efficient and cost-effective, and the new ECO2 memory line of modules where born."

The company is working hard to differentiate itself in a highly competitive market, pushing quality and reliability to help its products stand out, hoping that its ECO2 RAM kit can do just that.

Follow Michael Justin Allen Sexton @LordLao74. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Introduction

Mushkin originally released its Reactor at a single capacity point: 1TB. That model is currently our Budget Buy leader. It's an affordable, well-balanced SSD for anyone looking for acceptable performance at a low price.

Like the 1TB Reactor, Mushkin manages to position its newer 512GB model as the lowest-priced SSD in its capacity class on Newegg and Amazon. Nearly every aspect of the Reactor was designed to cut costs. The company even introduced an edge connector able to increase rigidity while shaving 10 to 12 cents from the bill of materials.

The drive uses Silicon Motion's proven SM2246EN controller paired with Micron's low-cost L95B 16nm flash. Mushkin was one of the first companies to utilize the SM2246EN, and we've since seen SanDisk, Crucial and a number of other vendors integrate it into their own budget-oriented products. The processor uses only four channels to the flash, so it's a low-cost part. But Silicon Motion squeezes a lot of performance out of the design. At the same time, it doesn't use much power.

Silicon Motion provides firmware as part of its solution, so companies working with the SM2246EN don't incur a lot of R&D resource drain. After the initial tooling and validation, they can take products to market quickly.

Mushkin now packages flash purchased in wafer form. This allows the company to take in several grades of NAND and use the best dies for solid-state drives. The lower-grade stuff goes into thumb drives and other flash-based products. But the Reactor uses Micron L95B 16nm NAND, which we've found to be faster than Toshiba's 15nm MLC and TLC flash. Micron has been selling L95B to third-party companies for around a year now. Yields are up, so it's plentiful and cheap.

Two other cost-cutting measures are used to make the Reactor more affordable. First, it ships in a blister pack without any accessories. We don't mind this since SSDs are robust and difficult to damage. Second is that previously-mentioned edge connector, designed by parent company Avant Technology.

Technical Specifications

MORE: Best SSDs For The Money
MORE: Latest Storage News
MORE: Storage in the Forums

After introducing its 1TB Reactor, Mushkin decided to release two additional capacities: 256 and 512GB. Today we're testing the 512GB model.

All three are rated for the same generic performance specifications, though we suspect that the 256GB version is a little slower due to less interleaving. The 512GB model uses the same number of flash packages as the 1TB drive, with half as many dies per package. Still, performance should be nearly identical.

Silicon Motion controllers deliver very high sequential read performance. In fact, in many of our tests over the last year, they delivered the best sequential reads of any platform we compared. Sequential writes land about 80 MB/s lower than premium SSDs like SanDisk's Extreme Pro and Samsung's 850 Pro. With modern SSDs, you pay more for write speed and performance consistency.

Pricing, Warranty And Accessories

At the time of writing, Mushkin's 512GB Reactor was sold out at both Amazon and Newegg. We reached out to Mushkin for comment and were told:

"The Reactor 512GB will be back in stock at Newegg on Tuesday [June 2nd, 2015] for $159.99. The 256GB model is still in stock at $87.99 and the 1TB model is in stock as well at $339.99."

After a quick check, we confirmed that the Reactor 512GB we're testing today is the lowest-priced 512GB-class SSD at Newegg, though as of June 15th, it's selling for $10 more than Mushkin claimed. The 1TB model holds the same designation for its capacity class, and the 256GB model is priced competitively.

Mushkin's Reactor ships with a three-year warranty, but doesn't include an accessory package. We can't knock it for this, given the attractive price point. This is a value-oriented product that satisfies the industry norm for low-cost SSDs.

A Closer Look

Mushkin ships its Reactor drives in a blister pack to keep costs down. This shifts the responsibility for packaging to the company's distributors. Fortunately, SSDs are very robust and not particularly susceptible to shipping damage.

Mushkin uses a 7mm z-height chassis for the Reactor, so it fits in notebooks that require the thinner form factor. 

The mounting points are right where they need to be, making installation on a drive sled or desktop adapter bracket effortless. 

The SATA power and data connectors are a little different, as you can see. This is an interface that we expect to see on more products in the future, though.

Mushkin fully populates the Silicon Motion SM2246EN four-channel controller. The company also uses Samsung DRAM for the Reactor's page buffer.

The Silicon Motion SM2246EN has a thermal pad between it and the chassis, turning the metal enclosure into a sink for dissipating the controller's waste heat.

There are 16 packages of Micron L95B NAND; the controller is clearly utilized to its fullest on this drive.

Here's a closer shot of the Reactor's edge connector. We spoke with Paul Goodwin, Chief Technical Officer at Avant Technology, about the new connector. Paul says he patented the interface, which uses the PCB for connectivity to power and data pins. This increases signal integrity and reduces build costs. Companies are able to license the design from Avant. We believe it saves between 10 to 12 cents per SSD. That may not sound like much, but in high volume, the savings add up quickly.

Data Type Comparison

Historically, only SandForce controllers were affected by the data you threw at them (they slowed when you hit them with incompressible information). However, new products hitting the market are subject to variance as well. We can easily identify performance differences using a range of entropy settings under Anvil's Storage Utility. The software lets us switch from 100% compressible to 100% incompressible to 46% (applications-grade) entropy.

The Reactor performs the same, regardless of the data you work with. This means you don't need to worry about using this drive under heavy multimedia workloads.

Sequential Read

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.

As you can see, the SM2246EN controller is capable of delivering very high sequential read results, even at low queue depths. We single out QD2 for comparing performance between products.

At a queue depth of two, Mushkin's Reactor falls a little behind some of the other drives. At the same time, it's faster than several mainstream and performance-oriented SSDs. Expect to enjoy quick game level load times and speedy transfers from your Reactor SSD to other drives in your PC.

Sequential Write

Sequential write performance is noticeably lower than many of the other comparison drives.

Crucial's 500GB BX100 uses the same SM2246EN controller and Micron L95B NAND. Performance between the two is nearly identical, even though the BX100 has some of its flash reserved (over-provisioned) for background activity.

Random Read

The BX100's over-provisioning helps it perform a little better than the 512GB Reactor. The difference is small, but the edge does go to Crucial.

Both products would benefit from advanced caching algorithms like SanDisk's nCache (found in the Ultra II SSD). Micron recently announced tools available to third parties that work with L95B FortisFlash, but the Reactor shipped before those tools were available. pSLC cache mainly increases random write speed, but also has a slight positive effect on random read performance. 

Random Write

The QD1 random write performance from Mushkin's Reactor 512GB is down compared to many other drives on our chart. This is an area where FortisFlash would really help. Even SanDisk's Ultra II with three-bit-per-cell flash is faster at low queue depths, even though TLC has higher write latency. 

By QD2, the Reactor regains composure and outperforms the low-cost competition, going so far as to run with SanDisk's Extreme Pro 480GB. The recovery at QD2 appears to be part of an optimization effort to improve the user experience on SMI-controlled products.

Most users never push high queue depths. SSDs are so fast that it's nearly impossible to stack commands. Even if you're multitasking with several programs running, it's difficult to even hit QD8, since most applications hit the drive for a moment to get or write the data they need.

80% Sequential Read Mixed Workload

Our mixed workload testing is described in detail here, and our steady state tests are described here.

A handful of outstanding commands and some light preconditioning with 80% reads is one of the most relevant ways to measure both sequential and random performance. On this chart, we see that most of the drives fall into the same performance range with only a few outliers at QD4. Pay the closest attention to QD2 and QD4, even though we take our measurements out to enterprise-class levels.

At QD2, only the Samsung 850 Pro stands out with higher performance than the other SSDs in our comparison group. Several drives prove to be slower, but Mushkin's Reactor lands in the group of more average products.

80% Random Read Mixed Workload

The mixed-data random write test tells nearly the same story, though the group of drives in the middle is separated by a little more variation. Mushkin's 512GB Reactor is in the lower half, along with Crucial's BX100. The 850 Pro again demonstrates the best performance at QD2 and QD4, and when it comes to low-cost storage, Samsung's 850 EVO trails just behind the 850 Pro. Samsung's caching scheme, TurboWrite, really helps the TLC-based 850 EVO in this workload.

Sequential Steady State

Steady state measurements remove the advantage of pSLC caching. Intel's SandForce-controlled SSD 530 does well in this test, even with the 50% entropy setting we use.

The 512GB Reactor trails nearly every other drive on this chart. At the same time, it wasn't designed to perform well under such an extreme load.

Random Write Steady State

We can learn a lot from the random write steady state test, even if none of us will ever see this condition on a desktop. Here, we're looking for performance consistency. The Reactor delivers a steady stream of 4KB random writes, but spikes when the DRAM cache is able to accept some of the writes. The only part we don't like about this measurement is the low level of 4KB random write performance when the cache doesn't catch the data.

PCMark 8 Real-World Software Performance

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

In our real-world tests, Mushkin's Reactor consistently falls to the bottom of the chart. It finishes many of these tasks within one second of some of the other drives, and normally that'd turn us off. But the Reactor's price helps us overlook its performance deficit.

Total Storage Bandwidth

In this chart, we average throughput from the previous tests. The benchmark runs each workload three times over roughly one hour, measuring performance in many of the applications we all use on a daily basis.

As we saw in the individual results, Mushkin's 512GB Reactor lands at the bottom of the list. It's a lot faster than a hard drive, so there's something to be said for that. The 256GB model isn't even priced too far from mechanical storage at around $88.

PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance

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

Under our various workloads, the Reactor trails the other SSDs we tested.

Latency Test

The service time results give us more cause for concern. Under heavy loads, Mushkin's 512GB Reactor isn't the drive you want crunching data. Its latency is just too high.

Under light workloads, the Reactor recovers somewhat, but falls in with a pack of competing models. On the bright side, at least it costs less.

Notebook Battery Life

For more information on how we test notebook battery life, click here.

One environment where the 512GB Reactor fares well is in your notebook, running on battery power. It allows our Lenovo T440 to stay mobile longer than any other drive in our chart. This test is a corner case, sure. But when you're watching Windows' power meter tick down, it suddenly matters a lot more and the Reactor becomes the drive to own.

We're happy to report that Mushkin doesn't sacrifice performance under battery power either. All SSDs slow down somewhat, but some drives suffer more than others.

Conclusion

In a perfect world, everyone would have the highest-performing SSD available to drop into their notebook and enthusiast-class desktop. Sadly, most of us are on more limited budgets. SSDs remain premium performance components. Even though price per gigabyte is way down compared to a few years ago, cost still isn't comparable to mechanical storage. Entry-level SSDs like Mushkin's 512GB Reactor deliver around 10 times the performance of a hard drive. But sometimes the extra expense just isn't in the cards.

Mushkin's Reactor really does a good job of pushing solid-state storage down to more affordable price points. Given modest performance and low cost, this drive is one of the best values we've seen. Just remember that it's not going to be as fast as some of the more enthusiast-oriented SSDs we review.

SSDs are also more reliable than disk drives. This is a selling point that resonates with many users. The reliability increase more than doubles in a notebook environment. Desktop users still benefit from lower latency and higher throughput. The Reactor doesn't ship with a desktop adapter bracket, so owners of older PCs need to consider mounting options. Some low-cost SSDs priced just above the Reactor do come bundled with adapters. Those products usually employ older controller technology that doesn't deliver the same random and incompressible speed, though.

Mushkin's Reactor sits right on top of the happy median line. Anything that costs less at this capacity point is going to be a mechanical hard drive, and everything above forces you to spend more without a corresponding increase in space.

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+.

Seeing Red

Do you have an X99-based platform? Do you only need 16GB? Those easily-answered questions lead to a much harder one: which memory kit to you buy? An increasing assortment of reasonably-priced DDR4 makes it more difficult to pick the right one. Companies that were able to get into the market early and make a bundle of cash on overpriced parts have already done so, giving us a larger group of higher-volume products competing with substantially similar specs.

In other words, the DDR4 market is becoming a race for value.

Redline 994206F memory modules by Mushkin Enhanced are aimed at the middle of the DDR4 market, where performance enthusiasts trend when they want to put more cash towards the processor or graphics. How does a brand stand out in such a price-sensitive pocket?

Red heat spreaders help, as does a DDR4-2800 CAS 15 rating. Then again, you’re paying an extra $30 for that higher rating, compared to Mushkin’s own DDR4-2666 CAS 15. We’re probably going to need to settle this by overclocking!

In fact, you’re not going to get very far without overclocking, since DDR4-2133 CAS 15 to 19 are the only configuration options that don’t require tuning your CPU. Every motherboard we’ve seen configures a DDR4-2800 XMP profile by first selecting the processor's 1.25x BCLK strap (the internal ratio of the CPU core to the lower parts of the CPU, such as it PCIe 3.0 controller). Choosing this strap automatically overclocks the CPU by 25%. And, realizing that a 25% CPU overclock probably won’t work at stock CPU core voltage, motherboard vendors program their firmware to set a lower CPU multiplier. For the Core i7-5930K, it’s usually 30x.

The numbers get messier from there, as Intel rates the Core i7-5930K at 3.5-3.7GHz, depending on the type of load applied. But 30x125=3750. That fixed frequency interferes with certain low-power states and maintains a 50 to 250MHz advantage over the stock configuration. Enthusiasts might think this is great, but it’s not exactly fair to compare different memory kits at different CPU frequencies.

Automatic CPU overclocking doesn’t stop there, as 125x11x2 is 2750, not 2800. Our motherboard attempts to reach the memory’s full 2800 MT/s data rate by increasing the core BCLK from 125 to 127.3MHz. We now have a 3.82GHz CPU core, which is great for performance but, again, doesn’t allow a direct memory performance comparison.

Fortunately, our Asus X99-Pro sample supports data rates far above the 2666 MT/s available on most motherboards. Its 14x 100MHz memory ratio isn’t super-stable, but it is stable enough to operate this memory at its rated frequency. Crashes at 14x typically apply to memory that’s already nearing its limit, and it looks like Mushkin’s Redline 994206F has room to grow.

Speaking of growth, our collection of 16GB quad-channel memory has grown to the point that we may soon find ourselves forced to break these out by rated data rate. That’s a shame really, since we’ve seen so many lower-rated kits reach such high overclocks that they really should be allowed to run with the big boys.

Results And Analysis

Retained hardware and software from our initial DDR4 round-up allows us to compare every DDR4 kit reviewed, without retesting. Almost as important is that I can show the link, rather than repost a bunch of redundant setup tables. We’ll jump straight to the point!

Intel’s higher memory multipliers are less stable than the more familiar validated settings, and the easiest way to get a more aggressive data rate with a lower memory multiplier is to use an elevated base clock. The CPU's 1.25x strap allows the parts that can’t be overclocked very far to run at 100MHz while the CPU core and memory controller operate at 125MHz. Memory multipliers that would normally correspond to DDR4-2400 and DDR4-2666 at 100MHz BCLK become DDR4-3000 and DDR4-3333 at 125MHz.

No memory we’ve reviewed thus far has been stable at a 3333 MT/s data rate, and our CPU becomes unstable at BCLK frequencies beyond 132MHz (corresponding to a 3168 MT/s data rate). Filling the hole between 3168 and 3333 requires underclocking the 125MHz BCLK, which would be silly if not for the fact that it exposes the true limits of each memory kit. In this case, Mushkin’s DDR4-2800 overclocks only one test setting lower than G.Skill’s highly-praised DDR4-3000.

Redline 994206F also overclocks one test setting higher than Corsair’s high-priced Dominator Platinum, though the price of those premium parts includes fancier heat spreaders and its Airflow Pro activity and temperature monitoring interface.

Manually configuring the Redline 994206F kit to its lowest stable primary timings, we see it mirrors Corsair’s  Dominator Platinum, which has a similar DDR4-2800 rating. G.Skill's DDR4-3000 modules lead slightly.

Mushkin’s tiny lead over its DDR4-2800 rival continues through Sandra's Memory Bandwidth test, though only at default XMP frequency and timings.

The Mushkin difference is its default XMP latency. Corsair’s CAS 16-18-18-36 is designed for easy booting, while Mushkin’s 15-15-15-35 pushes performance hard right out of the gate. Since both kits support identical optimized values, I’d say that either Corsair was being cautious or Mushkin reckless. I’d love to hear your opinion in the response thread.

The Redline 99420F kit falls slightly behind under Grid 2’s most memory-sensitive settings, though I don’t know anyone who could see the actual difference between 231 and 234 FPS. Other benchmarks are mostly tied. I’d love to hear suggestions for another popular real-world application that I should add to the test suite.

A chart that shows actual performance for each memory kit, divided by the average performance of all four kits, divided by price, shows that Mushkin’s Redline 994206F achieves roughly the same value as G.Skill’s DDR4-3000. This happened only after G.Skill radically reduced the price of its premium kit. The current $5 delta raises the question of who I should recognize most prominently?

G.Skill’s recent price reduction sets up a conflict that I won’t be able to resolve to anyone’s satisfaction. Is it fair to award one product in the review of another? Would it be fair not to equally award products of equal standing? And how can I recommend two products to fill exactly one role in exactly one system? I’ll try to answer this, to no one’s satisfaction: We recommend that buyers choose between Mushkin 994206F and G.Skill 3000C15Q kits based on the current price at their favorite vendor, their favorite brand for support and their ability to configure custom settings.

If there's one thing Mushkin is good at, it is making cheap SSDs – really cheap SSDs. Today, the Texas-based company struck again by announcing the availability of its ECO2 line of SSDs, which are some of the least expensive SSDs money can buy.

Of course, to keep the price of these SSDs as low as possible, sacrifices have to be made on the hardware side, which is probably the reason why Mushkin hasn't immediately disclosed what brand of flash memory it used. All we know is that it is MLC-based. We also know that the drives use a SandForce SF-2200 controller, which may be a bit dated.

The units aren't slow by any means, though. All of the capacities will read sequentially at up to 550 MB/s, and they will write at speeds between 485 and 530 MB/s, depending on the capacity. Random 4K write IOPS also range from 32,000 through 87,000 IOPS. Fortunately, they also support TRIM commands, so performance should remain consistent.

All the ECO2 SSDs are built in a 7 mm thick 2.5" enclosure and have a backwards-compatible SATA3 6 Gb/s interface.

Pricing for the units range from $39.99 through $159.99, which is for capacities ranging from 60 GB through 480 GB. Yes, that's right, the 480 GB variant will bring you storage at just 33 cents per gigabyte. Convincing that friend of yours who's been stuck using his hard drive to get an SSD just got a whole lot easier. Mushkin's ECO2 SSDs are exclusively available through Newegg, with all the units listed here.

Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Mushkin's Striker SSD was originally announced at CES 2015, but now it is available for purchase at Newegg and other retailers. The Striker utilizes a quad-core Phison S3110-S10 controller in concert with Micron 16nm MLC NAND, and comes in capacities of 240, 480, and 960 GB.

The Striker features fast sequential speeds near the limits of SATA at 565/550 MB/s read/write. 4K random performance varies slightly based on the capacity point, but the high-capacity 960 GB model offers 88,000/90,000 read/write IOPS.

Most SSDs on the market provide more than enough performance for the majority of users, so price and data protection features are becoming increasingly relevant. Mushkin includes end-to-end data protection and SmartECC to provide multiple layers of error correction. A SmartRefresh feature scans the flash in the background to seek and replace weak blocks, and SmartFlush reduces the amount of data held in DRAM to minimize the impact of any power loss events. 

SSDs are becoming increasingly cost-effective as we progress through smaller lithographies, and Micron 16nm provides a low-cost platform. The price of NAND comprises the majority of an SSD's cost, and the NAND fabs are slowly squeezing out third party SSD manufacturers due to their inherent price advantage. However, Mushkin has a trick up its sleeve that allows it to remain competitive. Mushkin commonly sources NAND wafers and conducts its own packaging. Processing and packaging NAND wafers provides Mushkin a cost advantage over other third party manufacturers, who tend to purchase more expensive pre-packaged NAND.

Mushkin designed the Striker to address the high-performance segment, but it does so at an amazingly competitive price point of $399 for 1 TB. Mushkin also offers the Reactor SSD, which only comes in a 1 TB model for $380, for the budget segment. Flash prices fluctuate often, so the amounts listed here are only accurate at the time of publication.

Follow Paul Alcorn @PaulyAlcorn. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Last week during CES 2015, Mushkin revealed a new line of 2.5-inch solid state drives (SSD) called "Striker." Slated for a Q1 2015 release, the new Striker series will provide capacities ranging from 240 GB to 960 GB. At press time, Mushkin did not provide pricing.

According to the company, the new series will be based on the Phison PS3110-S10 controller, which features a quad-core, 8-channel design. This controller will also support 256-bit AES encryption, Opal 2.0, end-to-end data path protection, SmartECC and more.

The new Striker SSD series will consist of a backwards-compatible SATA 3 (6 Gbps) interface and high-speed MLC NAND that pushes sequential read speeds of up to 565 MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 550 MB/s. The Striker SSDs will also have a random performance of up to 90,000 4K IOPS.

Currently, Mushkin does not have the Striker series listed on its website. However, the company provided a list of highlights including TRIM and SMART support, ultra-low power consumption thanks to DEVSLP support, and an ECC strength of 120 bits per 2 KB. The new SSD line will measure only 7 mm thick.

"Mushkin is committed to giving our customers the best performing and most reliable SSDs and our new STRIKER family of drives delivers," said Brian Flood, Director of Product Management at Mushkin. "With an ever-increasing demand for greater performance, the new STRIKER drives provides the ultimate combination of speed and reliability for today's demanding applications."

We expect to hear more about the Striker line of SSDs within the coming weeks, so stay tuned. However, if you're looking for a high-performance solution now, Mushkin also offers the Reactor SSD sporting 1 TB of storage. The read speeds are up to 560 MB/s, and the write speeds are up to 460 MB/s.

Typically, customers can purchase Mushkin hardware at Newegg, Amazon, AVA Direct and more online retail partners, which are all listed here.

Follow Kevin Parrish @exfileme. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

In the world of SSDs, there are a handful of things that can make a given drive stand out, including speed, capacity and price. Mushkin aims to check that last box by offering an affordable solution for everyday users with its Chronos G2 SSD.

The Chronos G2 SSDs are built with a SandForce SF-2000 series controller and MLC NAND flash. The drives themselves are quite similar to the older Mushkin Chronos drives that have already been on the market for a while, but the G2s come with a couple of minor changes to improve performance, power consumption and endurance.

Sequential read speeds should hit 555 MB/s, with write speeds ranging up to 535 MB/s. Mushkin has rated the drives with an MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of 1,500,000 hours. Idle power consumption sits at 0.7 W, while an active drive will consume around 3 W. Naturally, the drives come with TRIM support and work over a SATA3 (6 Gb/s) interface.

All things considered, there's not all that much new stuff here. Mushkin has left pricing to the retailers, and NewEgg has the drives priced at $59.99 for the 60 GB model, $79.99 for a 120 GB variant, $124.95 for a 240 GB drive and $219.99 for the highest-capacity 480 GB unit, placing them in line with competing budget-oriented SSDs.

Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

One of the most surprising things about the new X99 platform is that while the performance looks attractive, when it comes to memory we get most excited over DDR4 kits that might be more affordable. Ironic, isn't it?

Anyway, Mushkin has announced its Essentials DDR4 modules, which as their name indicates, are simply bare and basic DDR4 DIMMs that will get the job done. These memory modules do not come with a fancy heatsink or a slick black PCB, instead sporting that stripped-down green PCB. (Of course, since Mushkin's company color is green, you can always pin the PCB color choice on that rather than affordability.)

Being a product lineup where low cost is key, Mushkin has only made two different types of DIMMs, a 4 GB 2133 MHz module and an 8 GB 2133 MHz module. Both have CL15 latencies.

As for kit choices, there will be a total of six. Each of the above DIMMs will be available in packages of one, two or four DIMMs, creating kits ranging in capacities from 4 GB through 32 GB.

We've reached out to Mushkin for information on pricing but have yet to hear back. Hopefully, we're right in suspecting that these will be on the more affordable side of DDR4 memory kits coming to the market.

Follow Niels Broekhuijsen @NBroekhuijsen. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Product updates and refreshes dominated Mushkin's CES lineup, the least of which was a slight design change to its memory covers (AKA heat spreaders). The memory within follows previous Redline and Blackline model specifications, with a variety of products representing the most popular frequency and timing ranges of the computing enthusiast market (such as DDR3-1600 CAS 8 and DDR3-2400 CAS 10).

Perhaps most significant to the firm was its adoption of LSI's SF-3700 controller for its top SSDs. Dubbed Scorpion II Deluxe, the PCIe x4 version will be available within the next few weeks supporting NVME protocol with reads topping 1800 MB/s, capacities up to 2 TB, and optional "Data Hardening" capacitor buffers for the controller's integrated cache on enterprise versions.

Users without the space for an x4 card might instead find interest in Mushkin's Helix. Available in extended lengths up to 1 TB and shown in the 80mm 512 GB version, Mushkin is promising both SATA-based and PCIe x2-based versions of this M.2 drive.

Users lacking the room for even an 80mm m.2 card can always try external mounting. Mushkin's Ventura Ultra places the same hardware in an oversized "thumb drive" enclosure and adds a USB 3.0 interface for transfers of around 450 MB/s.

Check out all of our CES 2014 coverage!

Mushkin this week announced a brand new addition to its line of storage products. This one is a USB 3.0 thumb drive smaller than the size of a quarter. Dubbed 'Atom,' this little guy measures 19.8 x 16.5 x 7.5 mm and is available in 8 GB, 16 GB, and 32 GB capacities. 

The 8 GB model boasts 80 MB/s and 5.5 MB/s read and write speeds while consuming 0.65 W idle or 0.9.5 W at load. The 16 GB model offers 155 MB/s and 11.5 MB/s read and write while consuming 0.25 W idle and 0.67 W load. Lastly, the 32 GB model reads and writes at 155 MB/s and 21.5 MB/s, respectively. It comes 0.2475 W while idle and 0.75 W under load.

"The Atom USB flash drive is designed with ultimate portability and convenience in mind.  Having such a small and accommodating size eliminates the need to eject the flash drive and risk losing it when mobile," said Brian Flood, the Director of Product Management at Mushkin, Inc. "For our users who regularly use slimmer, portable devices such as tablets, the Atom is a definite solution when you need extra storage on a daily basis."

The 8 GB, 16 GB, and 32 GB models are already available on Newegg and are priced at $9.99, $15.99, and $24.99.

Follow Jane McEntegart @JaneMcEntegart. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Pick Your Favorite Components From 2013

In 2013 Tom's Hardware reviewed several hundred products. We take a lot of pride in how conservative we are with award recognition, but we still managed to hand out 45 honors. Of those, only eight achieved Tom's Hardware Elite status; the rest received a Smart Buy or Tom's Hardware Approved award.
 
That was our opinion. Now it's time to register yours.
 
We're kicking off our first ever Tom's Hardware Reader’s Choice Awards, selected by you, our most vocal fans, biggest critics, and loyal readers, all. We want you to help us recognize the best of the best.

 
We acknowledge that, in the course of a year, much changes. Still, most of these products are still relevant. We also realize that we’re leaving out an entire month's worth of potentially exceptional hardware. December 2013 will count toward our 2014 awards.
 

You can vote for any five products by visiting this page. Choose within categories, across categories, across award types, however you want to do it. Start voting now, and we'll close voting officially on December 16 at 12:01 AM EST. We'll reveal your collective five winners that following week.
 

For those of you in the U.S. who vote, you'll be entered into a sweepstakes. We'll pick 22 winners. The list of prizes is huge, and includes a complete Bolt system from Digital Storm; two very nice Lenovo ThinkPads, provided by Newegg; a Canon EOS Rebel SL1 camera, also from Newegg; an HP Chromebook from Newegg; a Nexus 7 tablet from Newegg; ASRock Z87-based motherboards; SanDisk 256 GB SSDs; Thermaltake keyboards, mice, and headsets; Cooler Master cases and power supplies; and Patriot mobile rechargeable batteries. A huge thanks to the companies who pitched in to make voting a little more exciting.

If you’re outside the country, we’d still love to hear your opinion; we just can’t ship off the bounty. Since this is a question that comes up frequently, we wanted to explain. As you know, we limit our giveaways to residents of the U.S., excluding Rhode Island, who are 18 years of age or older, even though we have a massive international audience that we value very much. However, officially, this is the Tom's Hardware U.S. website. Every government jurisdiction has its own rules for giveaways (contests and sweepstakes). These rules relate to such things as the responsibilities of contest sponsors including special fees that must be paid by them (hence, Rhode Island); whether giveaways are allowed at all; who can enter (relating to factors like age); and how we report prize values for tax purposes, including the required forms we must use. Every country and every state, province and local jurisdiction in every country has different rules. Rules in the U.S. are fairly uniform across government entities. We do not have the resources to assure that our contests and sweepstakes comply with giveaway rules in every jurisdiction, though, which is why those limitations are in place.

Back to the story. In the following pages, we list every award with a link to the round-up or review it appeared in, the author, the actual award classification, and a statement summarizing why we gave each product the award. Each page is organized alphabetically. We’re breaking this article up into a few categories, with a couple of catch-alls at the end. We hope it helps jog your memory before, or while you're voting. We also list all of the winners in this summary set of pages:
 
For those counting at home, we gave out seven awards in the storage/memory category, one for Wi-Fi, one eBook Reader, two Web Browsers, five Monitor/Displays, four Graphics Cards or GPUs, one Mouse, two Keyboards, 13 Motherboards, seven Coolers, and two Cases.

Monitors/Displays

AOC I2757Fh (Smart Buy)
From the article: AOC I2757Fh And ViewSonic VX2770Smh: Two 27" IPS Monitors, Written by Christian Eberle, Jan 15, 2013

Here's what we said: Most of us would be happy with either of these two displays on our desks, but the edge goes to ViewSonic for its superior contrast and black levels. With all other metrics showing the two monitors neck-and-neck, the VX2770Smh has just a little more pop thanks to its roughly 40 percent-higher contrast.

At the end of the day, though, either monitor can super-size your desktop without breaking the bank. And, priced $50 less than the ViewSonic, we'd be crazy not to recommend the solution from AOC as well. So, we're giving both the ViewSonic VX2770Smh and AOC I2757Fh our Smart Buy award.

Both companies are offering absolutely unreal bargains with these screens. The latest AH-IPS technology allows them to achieve high levels of color accuracy and superb contrast. While not ideal for high-end photo and graphics work, they are perfect for the increasing number of users employing their computers to watch TV and movie content. Sporting generous 27-inch screen sizes, HDTV-friendly 16:9 aspect ratios, and an admission price of around 300 bucks, either model lets you enjoy the big-screen experience.

AOC Q2963 Monitor Review (Smart Buy)
From the article: AOC Q2963 Monitor Review: 2560x1080 Is A New Way To Play, Written by Christian Eberle, August 25, 2013

Here's what we said: While the unique aspect ratio might not be for everyone, those who predominantly watch movies or play games on their computer might want to consider this new AOC. At just $450, it presents the greatest bang for your buck in this new product class, which is why we’re giving the AOC Q2963PM the Tom’s Hardware 2013 Smart Buy award.

Asus ProArt PQ279Q (Smart Buy)
From the article: Asus ProArt PQ279Q Monitor Review: 27-Inch, Wide-Gamut, QHD, Written by Christian Eberle, November 14, 2013

Here's what we said: For now, QHD is the standard, and Asus' PA279Q is one of the best screens we’ve tested. Its feature set puts it above the competition and its price really isn’t all that out of line. For its excellent out-of-box performance, top-notch color accuracy, selectable color gamuts, and huge feature set, we’re giving it the Tom’s Smart Buy Award.

Asus VG248QE (Smart Buy)
From the article: Asus VG248QE: A 24-Inch 144 Hz Gaming Monitor Under $300, Written by William Christian Eberle, October 2, 2013

Here's what we said: We hope to see displays like this based on IPS panels in the near future. And we suspect we will. The aftermarket has already produced overclocked IPS monitors with refresh rates up to 120 Hz. For now though, the VG248QE serves as a benchmark for gamers looking to remove one more choke point from the signal chain. And it represents a terrific value. Among the seven 120 Hz-or-higher screens we found in our research, Asus' VG248QE is the least expensive, and the only one reaching up to 144 Hz. For that reason, we’re giving it Tom’s Hardware 2013 Smart Buy award.

ViewSonic VX2770Smh (Smart Buy)
From the article: AOC I2757Fh And ViewSonic VX2770Smh: Two 27" IPS Monitors, Written by Christian Eberle, Jan 15, 2013

Here's what we said: Most of us would be happy with either of these two displays on our desks, but the edge goes to ViewSonic for its superior contrast and black levels. With all other metrics showing the two monitors neck-and-neck, the VX2770Smh has just a little more pop thanks to its roughly 40 percent-higher contrast.

At the end of the day, though, either monitor can super-size your desktop without breaking the bank. And, priced $50 less than the ViewSonic, we'd be crazy not to recommend the solution from AOC as well. So, we're giving both the ViewSonic VX2770Smh and AOC I2757Fh our Smart Buy award.

Both companies are offering absolutely unreal bargains with these screens. The latest AH-IPS technology allows them to achieve high levels of color accuracy and superb contrast. While not ideal for high-end photo and graphics work, they are perfect for the increasing number of users employing their computers to watch TV and movie content. Sporting generous 27-inch screen sizes, HDTV-friendly 16:9 aspect ratios, and an admission price of around 300 bucks, either model lets you enjoy the big-screen experience.

Motherboards

ASRock Z87 Extreme 4 (Smart Buy)
From the article: Fast And Cheap? Five Sub-$160 Z87 Motherboards For Enthusiasts, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, August 13, 2013

Here's what we said: We don't like giving out awards based on temporary discounts since our logo shows up on packaging long after prices go back up, and moving forward, we're taking steps that should prevent any vendor from playing pricing games. Until the next round-up, though, it'd be impossible for us to deny that ASRock's Z87 Extreme4 is an impressive buy for the amount of hardware you get at $140. In this case, you, the reader, win. ASRock earns recognition parallel to Biostar as a result.

ASRock Z87 Extreme6 (Smart Buy)
From the article: Five Z87 Motherboards Under $220, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, June 3, 2013

Here's what we said: Hours before we published this article, ASRock’s Z87 Extreme6 price dropped to $170. Though a $185 [Gigabyte] Z87X-UD4H might have taken the value award ahead of a $190 Z87 Extreme6, ASRock’s price drop probably would have forced us to issue a matching award for both the Z87 Extreme6 and the [Gigabyte] Z87X-UD4H. We don't issue or retract awards retroactively though, so that point is now moot. Regardless, whether Gigabyte's attractive price at Micro Center is long-lived or a more recent development, the board now gets our recommendation as a top-value overclocking alternative.

ASRock Z87E-ITX (Approved)
From the article: Five Z87 Motherboards For Your Mini-ITX Build, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, November 24, 2013

Here's what we said: The flexibility of eSATA and mSATA connectors on ASRock's Z87E-ITX truly does make it difficult to crown another board unquestionably superior. So, competing closely for top-value and top-features, many of us would rightly consider the ASRock platform as a stunning offering as well. The only award we have left to bestow on the Z87E-ITX is Tom's Hardware Approved, which is recognition from our editor of a job well done.

Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 (Smart Buy)
From the article: Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, April 1, 2013

Here's what we said: Gigabyte has the benefit of FireWire ports, which most users no longer need. Asus has the benefit of USB BIOS Flashback, which isn't needed very often either, but is a real lifesaver when you figure out an update is necessary to support that new processor you just bought. Asus bundles a better application suite to complement a longer list of exclusive features. Then again, we think Asus needs those extras to justify the M5A99FX Pro R2.0’s $5 premium over the Gigabyte board. The company succeeds in this. And, with overall value balanced, we cast our vote in favor of the better overclocker.

Asus Maximus VI Formula (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Z87 Hits The High End: Four Sub-$300 Motherboards, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, October 1, 2013

Here's what we said: Discounts that helped ASRock throughout the summer have now expired. In a battle for feature supremacy, Asus' on-board extras are worth a little more. Without a big price difference to distract us from the value of those bundled value-adds, the Maximus VI Formula earns our rarest and most prestigious Tom's Hardware Elite award.

Asus Z871-Deluxe (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Five Z87 Motherboards For Your Mini-ITX Build, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, November 24, 2013

Here's what we said: The Z87I-Deluxe’s beefier power circuitry costs more than ASRock’s alternative sneakily-placed SATA connector, and probably justifies its $30 price difference. Then again, Asus would tell us that the hardware needed to enable its USB BIOS Flashback feature is also worth a chunk of that difference, even if most of us won't have occasion to use it. The Z87E-ITX comes out on top of a practical features-to-price comparison, while Asus’s more-expensive extras finish first in a cost-versus-price analysis.

When Tom's Hardware looks to crown a product the best in a category, however, price gets limited weighting. Asus' features are probably more valuable than ASRock’s, even though we're asked to pay more for them. Nevertheless, the Asus Z871-Deluxe receives our coveted Tom's Hardware Elite award.

Asus Z87 Plus (Approved)
From the article: Fast And Cheap? Five Sub-$160 Z87 Motherboards For Enthusiasts, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, August 13, 2013

Here's what we said: This isn't to take away anything from the two boards still selling around $160: Asus' Z87-Plus and Gigabyte's Z87X-UD3H. We suspect both are truly worth more than the price at which they're selling, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend either to an enthusiast able to put their feature sets to good use. So, in an unprecedented move for us, we're acknowledging both platforms with Tom's Hardware Approved recognition.

Asus Z87 Pro (Approved)
From the article: Five Z87 Motherboards Under $220, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, June 3, 2013

Here's what we said: The Asus Z87 Pro roughly matches ASRock’s apparent feature value by adding a fairly good Wi-Fi and Bluetooth solution. Higher stability, quality components like 5,000-hour-rated capacitors, and less conspicuous features (such as its USB BIOS Flashback IC) probably make up for its $20 price premium. We’re not afraid of radical price shifts from Asus; the company's prices usually go down following a launch. And those factors come together, making it easy for us to give the most stable motherboard in this round-up our stamp of approval.

Biostar Hi-Fi Z87X 3D (Smart Buy)
From the article: Fast And Cheap? Five Sub-$160 Z87 Motherboards For Enthusiasts, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, August 13, 2013

Here's what we said: Biostar's Hi-Fi Z87X 3D is at the top. On the 5th, it was also the cheapest board in our round-up. And yet it hung in there with the rest of the pack in terms of overclocking. This platform is light on value-added extras; however, it handles the basics well. As such, it rose to the surface as the original pick for our Smart Buy award. This is a Tom's Hardware recognition that explicitly calls out bang for your buck, and it's well-deserved.

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (Approved)
From the article: Three AMD 990FX-Based Motherboards For Enthusiasts, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, April 1, 2013

Here's what we said: We know that some of those same purists will object, pointing out that they won't install any of Asus' value-added software anyway, will do their research before buying a processor that might not be supported out of the box, and don't plan on using extraordinarily fast DDR3 memory. They'll tell us they're better off saving $5, keeping FireWire connectivity, or adding an expansion card to its extra single-lane PCI Express slot. Because those enthusiasts have their own specific needs, they already know they're right. Our next award is proof that $5 saved is $5 earned, and recognition that Gigabyte's 990FXA-UD3 is still a solid, well-priced product that does its job well.

Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H (Approved)
From the article: Fast And Cheap? Five Sub-$160 Z87 Motherboards For Enthusiasts, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, August 13, 2013

Here's what we said: This isn't to take away anything from the two boards still selling around $160: Asus' Z87-Plus and Gigabyte's Z87X-UD3H. We suspect both are truly worth more than the price at which they're selling, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend either to an enthusiast able to put their feature sets to good use. So, in an unprecedented move for us, we're acknowledging both platforms with Tom's Hardware Approved recognition.

Gigabyte Z87N-WiFi (Smart Buy)
From the article: Five Z87 Motherboards For Your Mini-ITX Build, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, November 24, 2013

Here's what we said: Gigabyte and MSI present significantly similar platforms, which offer features and faults that largely mirror each other. Naturally, they sell for almost identical prices, too. The Z87N-WiFi had a tough time pushing memory data rates beyond 2400 MT/s, while the Z87I was over 50 MHz down on CPU core over clocking. Recent memory tests indicate that CPU core frequency is the more important variable, though anyone who disagrees will want to see these motherboards achieve a value tie. Our Smart Buy recognition doesn't have to be exclusive in a round-up, so they both receive our recognition.

MSI Z871 (Smart Buy)
From the article: Five Z87 Motherboards For Your Mini-ITX Build, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, November 24, 2013

Here's what we said: Gigabyte and MSI present significantly similar platforms, which offer features and faults that largely mirror each other. Naturally, they sell for almost identical prices, too. The Z87N-WiFi had a tough time pushing memory data rates beyond 2400 MT/s, while the Z87I was over 50 MHz down on CPU core over clocking. Recent memory tests indicate that CPU core frequency is the more important variable, though anyone who disagrees will want to see these motherboards achieve a value tie. Our Smart Buy recognition doesn't have to be exclusive in a round-up, so they both receive our recognition.

Cooling Solutions

Arctic Accelero Xtreme III (Smart Buy)
From the article: Fixing The Radeon R9 290 With Arctic's Accelero Xtreme III, Written by Igor Wallossek, November 17, 2013

Here's what we said: Our Smart Buy award goes to Arctic's cooler, which turns AMD's newest high-end cards into faster, quieter, better versions of themselves. AMD needs to take a page out of Nvidia's book. Its reference cooler shouldn't be considered reference at all. It's more of a torture device for an otherwise very capable graphics Processor. Someone over there should be thanking Arctic for providing a reprieve.

Noctua NH-U14S (Approved)
From the article: Nine Big Air Coolers For Intel's Haswell CPUs, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, July 14, 2013

Here's what we said: Noctua's NH-U14S isn't the strongest performer qualifying for our stamp of our approval, but it is the least-expensive option able to do what we need it to. Second place on our value charts behind the Ashura, which barely qualifies, the NH-U14S is effective enough to allow a 31° case temperature before our Core i7-4770K at 4.5 GHz started throttling under unusually stressful test loads. In other words, it allows us to get most of our intended performance most of the time. If that sounds like a half-hearted justification, consider the field and consider our tepid response to Core i7-4770K in the first place. We aren't particularly enthused about Intel's latest effort, but Noctua's NH-U14S makes the best of a difficult situation.

NZXT Kraken X40 (Smart Buy)
From the article: Four More Closed-Loop Liquid Coolers Take On The NH-D14, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, March 5, 2013

Here's what we said: Closed-loop coolers are the top option for damage reduction, and the NZXT Kraken X40’s combination of low price and high performance makes it the best value among these. It fits most systems that have a 140mm exhaust fan mount and a vacant top expansion slot, which means that it fits most of today's enthusiast-oriented hardware.

Thermalright True Spirit 140(BW) (Smart Buy)
From the article: Three Thermalright True Spirit Heat Sinks, Reviewed, Written by Kai Tubbesing, August 5, 2013

Here's what we said: Value is probably not the first thing that springs to mind when faced with its $50 price tag. But make no mistake; that's inexpensive considering the cooler’s performance level. You might be tempted to save a couple of bucks by buying the smaller 120M(BW), but the seven extra dollars you spend buys a lot of additional performance, which is important when you're gunning for a aggressive overclock on a system you plan to use daily. Its fan is also quieter than the other two models we reviewed, making it the most pleasant of the three coolers in practical use. Even at 100% duty cycle, the cooler did well in our acoustic benchmarks. In light of that, the Thermalright True Spirit 140(BW) secures our Smart Buy award for excellent performance at a reasonable price.

Thermaltake Water2.0 Extreme (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Four More Closed-Loop Liquid Coolers Take On The NH-D14, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, March 5, 2013

Here's what we said: Knowing that you’re the best might be an award unto itself, but being the best-in-class makes a product eligible for our Tom's Hardware Elite award, which is affected less by pricing and more by performance. If you’re building a system with top-end hardware and don’t want the maintenance hassle of an open-loop cooler, the Water2.0 Extreme could very well be your best choice.

Zalman CNPS8900 Quiet (Smart Buy)
From the article: Eight Low-Profile CPU Coolers For Your Compact PC, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, November 13, 2013

Here's what we said: Two candidates emerge for our top-honor Elite award, the Zalman CNPS8900 Quiet that fits most "slim" enclosures and Noctua NH-L12 that fits only a few. But there can only be one best. And since one of the two products also qualifies for a value award, I’m bypassing the debate between performance superiority and enclosure compatibility. The CNPS8900 Quiet combines good cooling performance, low noise, broad case compatibility, and a moderate price to make it the smartest choice for the majority of compact system builders.

Graphics

AMD Radeon R9 280X (Smart Buy)
From the article: AMD Radeon R9 280X, R9 270X, And R7 260X: Old GPUs, New Names, Written by Chris Angelini and Igor Wallossek, Oct 7, 2013

Here's what we said: There’s another positive in all of this for AMD: in the process of hacking away at its flagship’s price tag, the company pushed Tahiti into a price band Nvidia doesn’t service. True, R9 280X is slower than the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition. But the card is also about $30 cheaper. At $300, there’s a $50 premium over GeForce GTX 760, but that board doesn't handle QHD resolutions as well with detail settings cranked up. If I was building a PC to game on a 2560x1440 display and wanted to get in the door as inexpensively as possible without sacrificing graphics quality, the 280X would be my card. That value is why I’ll hand the Tahiti-based board our Smart Buy award. There’s certainly something to be said for revisiting a GPU when it's selling for $200 less than the last time you reviewed it.

AMD Radeon R9 290X (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Radeon R9 290X Review: AMD's Back In Ultra-High-End Gaming, Written by Chris Angelini and Igor Wallossek, Oct 23, 2013

Here's what we said: In the spirit of getting massive performance at a substantial discount, then, I’m giving AMD’s Radeon R9 290X Tom’s Hardware’s Elite award—the first time a graphics card has received this honor, I believe, during my tenure. The decision was controversial. Nvidia still does thermals, acoustics, and aesthetics better. But now it’s also charging a hefty premium for those luxuries. AMD’s card is faster, cheaper, and it makes an effort to keep acoustics under control, so long as you stick with its Quiet mode. AMD reworked its approach to CrossFire and now has a more elegant solution that, while not perfect (we still measured dropped and runt frames inSkyrim, along with notable variance in other titles), does facilitate frame pacing right out of the gate at resolutions all the way up to 7680x1440. I’ll get more enthusiastic about the R9 290X if third-party designs start showing up with better cooling. Until then, it’d be downright negligent to not recognize this card’s class-leading performance at a price we paid for Radeon HD 7970 two years ago.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 (Smart Buy)
From the article: The GeForce GTX 770 Review: Calling In A Hit On Radeon HD 7970, Written by Chris Angelini, May 30, 2013

Here's what we said: GK104 might be an older GPU, but it’s still a potent piece of gaming hardware. Just ratchet up its clock rates, retrofit it with the best looking and performing graphics cooler we’ve ever seen, and knock its price back $50 from the GeForce GTX 680’s price point as of one week ago. AMD was sitting pretty with its Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition at $450. But GeForce GTX 770 walked into the bar, turned over a table, and showed the same sort of aggression we saw when it launchedGeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost under $200. And that’s why we’re bestowing Tom's Hardware's Smart Buy award on Nvidia's GeForce GTX 770. Although high-end graphics cards are still expensive, we’re happy to get more performance in a better-built package for $100 less than what we could buy a year ago in GeForce GTX 680.

PowerColor HD7870 PCS+ Myst Edition (Smart Buy)
From the article: Tahiti LE, Tested: PowerColor's HD7870 PCS+ Myst Edition, Written by Igor Wallossek, Feb 10, 2013

Here's what we said: Despite its high power consumption, the PowerColor HD7870 PCS+ Myst Edition presents a really interesting prospect for overclockers and budget gamers alike. If you don’t have the cash for a real Radeon HD 7950 or a GeForce GTX 660 Ti, then the HD7870 PCS+ Myst Edition sits in as an excellent alternative. The sole caveat of our recommendation shows up as a slight ding each month on our power bill. But we have to let this product's performance per dollar speak for itself. So, we’re giving the PowerColor HD7870 PCS+ Myst Edition our Smart Buy award.

Storage/Memory

Crucial 256 GB m4 in the mSATA form factor (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Round-Up: 10 mSATA SSDs From Adata, Crucial, Mushkin, And OCZ, Written by Andrew Ku, January 6, 2013

Here's what we said: This drive demonstrates consistent performance at a price we're comfortable paying. It's unclear if we'll ever see a dramatically faster SSD for the mSATA interface. But, seeing as this one already comes close to saturating a 6 Gb/s connection in sequential reads, and is well-established as a reliable solution, there isn't another option we'd recommend as an alternative. The 256 GB m4 takes our highest honor, and is the drive to buy if you need mSATA-based storage.

Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP (Approved)
From the article: Six Low-Voltage Dual-Channel 8 GB Memory Kits, Overclocked, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, May 12, 2013

Here's what we said: We finish with two top picks, Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP offering the best performance and G.Skill Sniper SR2 providing the best value. G.Skill also has the advantage of its stunningly-low 1.25 V baseline voltage, while Crucial has a much larger advantage in overclocking.

G.Skill Sniper SR2 (Approved)
From the article: Six Low-Voltage Dual-Channel 8 GB Memory Kits, Overclocked, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, May 12, 2013

Here's what we said: We finish with two top picks, Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP offering the best performance and G.Skill Sniper SR2 providing the best value. G.Skill also has the advantage of its stunningly-low 1.25 V baseline voltage, while Crucial has a much larger advantage in over clocking.

G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1866 CAS 10 (Smart Buy)
From the article: Haswell and Richland Memory Scaling: Picking A 16 GB DDR3 Kit, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, September 15, 2013

Here's what we said: Though exceptions exist for low-power computing, most enthusiasts would rather spend $70 on a discrete graphics card than an enthusiast-oriented memory kit to supplement the lackluster performance of an integrated GPU. Nevertheless, G.Skill has a solution for the folks who aren't ready to spend that much on either option. It'll give you half of the performance improvement for a quarter of the price increase, and that sounds like a smart value. Our G.Skill samples were also highly tunable, reaching nearly identical performance to Mushkin’s high-end parts after we put a bunch of time into manually tweaking their settings. Anyone who achieves or surpasses our tuning efforts will especially find G.Skill’s DDR3-1866 CAS 10 a smart buy.

Mushkin Redline Ridgeback 997121R (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Haswell and Richland Memory Scaling: Picking A 16 GB DDR3 Kit, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, September 15, 2013

Here's what we said: We invited all of the major players in the retail memory business to participate in today’s evaluation of memory scaling across both desktop platforms with on-die graphics. The willing participants submitted samples ranging from a low-cost high-latency DDR3-1866 kit to high-cost low-latency DDR3-2400. We found that DDR3-2133 performed best on both AMD and Intel platforms, and Mushkin’s 997121R won the performance race by being latency-optimized at that data rate. It gets our most prestigious and rare Elite award for being the best product in its class.

Samsung 840 EVO SSD (Smart Buy)
From the article: Samsung 840 EVO SSD: Tested At 120, 250, 500, And 1000 GB, Written by Christopher Ryan, July 25, 2013

Here's what we said: Because we're enthusiasts and enjoy the fastest of pretty much everything, we already know that Samsung's 840 EVO isn't all things to all people. However, it's a product able to satisfy most people, armed with features that they'll both want and use. And Samsung plans to ask a price that millions of customers have already paid for vanilla 840s. With the addition of 750 GB and 1 TB models, the company's mainstream SSD family is pretty darned complete. Left with little else to ask for from an SSD, we're pleased to confer the Tom's Hardware Smart Buy award on Samsung's 840 EVO.

SanDisk Extreme (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: 31 USB 3.0 Thumb Drives, Tested And Reviewed,Written by Manuel Masiero, Achim Roos, July 21, 2013

Here's what we said: We do come away with a recommendation, though: SanDisk's Extreme USB 3.0 thumb drive. It offers good to excellent read and write performance across all of our benchmarks. Consequently, in this field of 31 contenders, we confidently give it our Elite honor.

The 64 GB model sells for about $71, which gets you a quick USB 3.0-rated repository able to outperform mechanical storage. Seriously consider using it with an SSD-equipped system to utilize its full potential. Some of the other models in our round-up beat the Extreme in a handful of our tests, but this is the most consistently-fast performer in the workloads we threw at it.

Miscellaneous: Keyboard, Mouse, Cases

Cooler Master's HAF XB (Smart Buy)
From the article: Cooler Master's HAF XB: Give Your LAN Party Box Breathing Room, Written by Kai Tubbesing, August 20, 2013

Here's what we said: Cooler Master's HAF XB is a unique, flexible, and durable chassis able to satisfy a number of functions well. Its price is moderate, and we can't really find anything wrong with it. It simply works well in the roles it was designed to satisfy. The form factor isn't going to be for everyone, and it certainly won't fit on or under the desks of several Tom's Hardware editors. But that's not what it was designed for. In its element, the HAF XB steps up to earn Tom's Hardware's Smart Buy award for serving up notable value, a functional design, and Cooler Master's sprinkle of innovation as it tries something new.

Corsair Obsidian 900D (Case) (Smart Buy)
From the article: Corsair Obsidian 900D Review: Making Room For High-End Gear, written by Igor Wallossek, April 22, 2013

Here's what we said: Corsair's Obsidian 800D found a fitting successor in its larger brother, the Obsidian 900D. We only found a few issues to quibble about, and much more to like. We're fans of the solid construction and find the simple design to be classic. In our eyes, modest elegance trumps modernistic design stunts. This is what our mature tastes have evolved into. Even after a few years, this case is going to look good, exhibiting its timelessness. All of these redeeming qualities compel us to honor the Obsidian 900D with an award, which doesn't happen very often, particularly in the chassis segment. But we're certain that our recognition is completely justified and well-deserved.

Enermax Ostrog GT (Case) (Smart Buy)
From the article: Four More Sub-$100 Cases For Your Gaming Build, Reviewed, Written by Thomas Soderstrom, May 28, 2013

Here's what we said: So the highest-quality case in today’s comparison, Zalaman’s MS800 Plus doesn’t win our top prize simply because it’s not specifically designed for mid-budget gamers. Enermax’s mid-market Ostrog GT has the performance and features to make it the value-oriented pick over BitFenix’s less-expensive Shinobi, so the Ostrog GT gets our "Smart Buy" award.

Gigabyte Aivia Osmium (Keyboard) (Smart Buy)
From the article: Mechanical Keyboards: BlackWidow, Osmium, G710+, Written by Daniel Starkey, September 12, 2013

Here's what we said: While the Logitech G710+ is quieter, the Osmium packs a few more features, has the lowest actuation force, and it can handle a ridiculous number of simultaneous key presses. The Gigabyte board again manages to edge out the G710+ with a few additional macros and audio port extensions for easy access. Its construction is solid and the blue lighting is very easy on the eyes during those long late night gaming sessions, which overall leads to a pretty luxurious user experience. The fact that the $130 Aivia Osmium is the cheapest of the three keyboards being compared today, didn't exactly hurt either, and that's why we're giving the Gigabyte Aivia Osmium our Smart Buy award.

Logitech G9x (Mouse) (Approved)
From the article: Four Keyboards And Four Mice For LAN Party Gamers, Rounded-Up, Written by Daniel Starkey, Feb 14, 2013

Here's what we said: As far as mice go, we can say that we’ve become thoroughly obsessed with the Logitech G9x (Ed.: Coincidentally, this is the mouse I've been using on my personal gaming rig for a couple of years now). The G9x's feel is what sets it apart, and unfortunately that needs to be experienced first-hand. Particularly since it's selling for $20 less than when we started this story, the G9x also deserves an Approved award at $60.

Razer BlackWidow Tournament Edition (Keyboard) (Approved)
From the article: Four Keyboards And Four Mice For LAN Party Gamers, Rounded-Up, Written by Daniel Starkey, Feb 14, 2013

Here's what we said: Razer’s entire BlackWidow line is fantastic, and the Tournament Edition is no different. We've used several BlackWidows, and they all have that satisfying response you can only get from a high-end mechanical switch keyboard. While we don't buy into the idea that a more tactile key press will improve your gaming performance, we certainly can testify that it helps with general typing more than you might expect. As such, the BlackWidow Tournament Edition earns our Approved award for rising to the top of today's field.

Miscellaneous: Web Browser, eBook Reader, Wi-Fi

Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (Approved)
From the article: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite Review: The Best E-Book Reader? Written by Andrew Ku, March 11, 2013

Here's what we said: The Paperwhite is enough of an upgrade over past Kindles that we're awarding it our Tom's Hardware Approved Award. There's a lot to like here, though we'd like to see an even lower price to keep the e-book reader more differentiated from modern $200 tablets. But for what it's designed to do, this is definitely the Cadillac of e-book readers.

Asus RT-AC66U (Tom's Hardware Elite)
From the article: Gigabit Wireless? Five 802.11ac Routers, Benchmarked, Written by William Van Winkle, Jan 13, 2013

Here's what we said: Then there’s Asus, which won this contest hardly breaking a sweat. The company simply out-engineered its competition and came up with a best-in-class feature set. Even more amazing is that the RT-AC66U accomplished this in essentially a first-generation product and delivered it at a price point that handily bests its closest competition. For all of the above, we believe the RT-AC66U deserves our infrequently-bestowed Elite award.

Google Chrome (Approved)
From the article: Web Browser Grand Prix: Chrome 25, Firefox 19, IE 10, Written by Adam Overa, March 13, 2013

Here's what we said: While it was a close race, Chrome's showing in all four of the remaining non-performance metrics was superior to Firefox, closing the deal. Firefox does place a very close second, especially inWindows 8, where it has an apparent advantage. In fact, looking at the performance index reveals that Firefox receives an even larger boost from the new version of Windows than IE10.

Speaking of, Microsoft's newest browser doesn't exactly shake the earth on either version of the company's ubiquitous OS, earning a mediocre third place. Opera and IE9 share last place, halving Chrome's score. It's hard to believe that the Norwegian browser went toe-to-toe with Google just a few short years ago. With version 12 a continuing disappointment, perhaps it's best that Opera join the ranks of Chrome clones.

Mozilla Firefox 22 (Approved)
From the article: Chrome 27, Firefox 22, IE10, And Opera Next, Benchmarked, Written by Author & Date: Adam Overa, June 30, 2013

Here's what we said: With no apparent weaknesses and generally strong finishes all-around, combined with near-native start times, greatly-improved hardware acceleration scores, and almost-perfect reliability, the latest version of Firefox soundly wins this installment of the Web Browser Grand Prix.

There's Always Room For More

System Builder Marathon, Q3 2013: The Articles

Here are links to each of the five articles in this quarter’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published). And remember, these systems are all being given away at the end of the marathon.

To enter the giveaway, please fill out this SurveyGizmo form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!

Day 1: The $650 Gaming PC
Day 2: The $1300 Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $2550 Performance PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Day 5: The $350 Bonus Entry-Level PC

Introduction

Last quarter I was given a huge $2600 budget, from which I was allowed to pack the greatest amount of performance into the least amount of space. I didn’t find the mini-ITX theme we all sang to particularly confining though, because I picked one of the largest two-slot cases on the market. As a result of my enclosure and some carefully-planned cooling, I was even able to push that compact system with a massive overclock.

This month we’re back to full ATX, which means I don't need to plan out the cooling system as carefully. Instead, the large increase in case size and available components forces me to calm down a bit in order to stay within budget. Truth be told, I had a hard time spending all of my funding last time around. But given my plan this time around, it's going to be equally difficult to not go way over the top. 

My plan? Oh, I want to one-up the previous build in as many ways as I can afford to. I still have as much as $2600 if I need it, but I'm going to try to stay as close to the previous machine's $2451 price as possible. Perturbed by the notion of paying more to get fewer features on a smaller mini-ITX motherboard, I'm going big on the platform, its interface, the memory subsystem, and even the graphics configuration fed by those devices.

Though the original build sheet totaled just under $2500, that order was delayed by a few weeks. Some temporary discounts went away, and while others took their place, the overall price remains higher than I preferred. I still stayed within the $2600 limit however, so I'm the only one among the builder team who's disappointed by the extra expense. I was, after all, trying to get this build to match its predecessor's price.

Graphics, Motherboard, And CPU

Graphics: EVGA 04G-P4-2766-KR in Three-Way SLI

This build started out as an effort to find zero-cost upgrades to the previous quarter's machine in as many places as possible. But as it turns out, it's pretty hard to beat the gaming performance of a dual-GPU GeForce GTX 690. A pair of 780s would cost too much. Two GeForce GTX 770s looked to have great value potential. But what about a trio of 760s? Two of our graphics editors gave the three-way SLI solution a nod (though perhaps they were just curious about how it'd do).

Read Customer Reviews of EVGA's 04G-P4-2766-KR

EVGA alleviated my concerns about gaming at 4K by pricing the 4 GB version of its card under $300. Remember, just because we're going to be using three 4 GB boards doesn't mean all of that memory is accessible to each card; the same data is duplicated in each board's GDDR5.

Motherboard: ASRock X79 Extreme6

Nvidia doesn’t support three-way SLI in the x8-x4-x4 mode available from Intel’s mainstream processor interfaces, and LGA 1150 boards upgraded with high-bandwidth PCIe switches cost around $400. Adding to our upgrade woes, Haswell-based processors typically don’t perform much better than the Ivy Bridge-based part in last quarter's build. If we wanted to combine true CPU and GPU upgrades, we’d need to go LGA 2011.

Read Customer Reviews of ASRock's X79 Extreme6

Our search for affordable quality in a three-way SLI board turned up ASRock’s X79 Extreme6 for $220, which was $15 cheaper than the company’s lower-end model, the X79 Extreme4. This is the same motherboard we tested over a year ago in a different package, adding firmware patches to address our previous complaints, and subtracting its separate audio/network combo card.

CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K

Ordered long before the official launch of Intel’s Ivy Bridge-E processors, LGA 2011 didn’t leave any economical upgrades to the previous build’s four-core CPU. I’d need to step back in core technology and step up in core count. Sporting six unlocked Sandy Bridge cores, Intel’s $570 Core i7-3930K was the cheapest upgrade to fit the platform.

Read Customer Reviews of Intel's Core i7-3930K

Then again, on a per-core basis, Sandy Bridge is barely a downgrade from Ivy Bridge, which in turn is barely a downgrade from Haswell. I’m relying on the -3930K’s extra x86 resources to boost overall performance through spectacular results in a handful of well-threaded applications, and my history of pushing it to 4.6 GHz.

Case, Power, And CPU Cooler

Case: Lian Li PC-9NA

ASRock’s X79 Extreme6 motherboard appeared to be a bargain, but that bargain came at the cost of slot layout. Since each graphics card requires an extra slot for cooling, a third card in the board’s bottom slot necessitated a case with an eighth expansion slot.

Read Customer Reviews of Lian Li's PC-9NA

Finding an eight-slot case for $100 wouldn’t be easy, since Newegg’s search engine bundles them with 7+1 (side slot) units. That eighth slot needed to be directly beneath the seventh slot in standard spacing. Combining fair performance with high build quality, Lian Li’s PC-9N should have sufficed…before the price went up. Currently, the black version is $95.

Power: Corsair HX850

My search for an 80 PLUS Gold (or better) power supply that could feed three GeForce GTX 760 graphics cards and a power-hungry Sandy Bridge-E-based CPU was complicated by the need to keep its price under $150. After scrolling past a list of brands I’ve never tested, Corsair’s HX850 became the clear choice.

Read Customer Reviews of Corsair's HX850

Semi-modular design means all the cables Corsair thinks you’ll need (motherboard and dual 6+2-pin PCIe) are permanently connected to the unit. Removable cables (four 6+2-pin PCIe, secondary EPS12V, and several SATA power cables) are packed in a separate bag.

CPU Cooling: Noctua NH-D14 SE2011

Sandy Bridge-E-based processors are known to run hot. In fact, they require so much cooling that Intel doesn’t even pack them with its own solution. The firm instead suggests separately purchasing its own branded version of Asetek’s closed-loop liquid cooler.

Read Customer Reviews of Noctua's NH-D14 SE2011

But sealed liquid systems don’t do a very good job of cooling the motherboard-mounted voltage regulator, so I instead picked the award-winning Noctua NH-D14. Though the standard kit can be installed in LGA 1366 fashion, the SE2011 kit adds special springs and standoffs for LGA 2011’s integrated mounting bracket.

DRAM, SSD, HDD, And ODD

System RAM: Mushkin Enhanced 993988S

Looking for a great price on a 16 GB quad-channel kit? After spending over half my budget on the CPU and graphics cards, I sure was. Mushkin’s Stealth DDR3-1600 CAS 9 appeared to fit the bill.

Read Customer Reviews of Mushkin's Enhanced 993988S

Rated at 1.35 V, I’m hoping that a little extra voltage will go a long way towards my overclocking goals.

SSD: Mushkin MKNSSDCR240GB-DX

A far lower price once again made Mushkin’s 240 GB DX-series the top pick over Samsung’s similarly-sized 840 Pro.

Read Customer Reviews of Mushkin's MKNSSDCR240GB-DX

Were I to choose an SSD today, recent price breaks for Samsung’s 250 GB EVO could have put it into this system. My consolation is that, for an extra $10, the EVO barely outpaces competing SandForce-based drives.

HDD: WD WD30EZRS

Read Customer Reviews of WD's WD30EZRS

Western Digital’s Caviar Green drives are designed for economy, which allowed me to choose a model with 3 TB of capacity. Though the 5400 RPM spindle speed also reduces power consumption, currency is the green that I’m hoping to save.

BD-RE: Pioneer BDR-2208

Read Customer Reviews of Pioneer's BDR-2208

I usually add optical drives for convenience, and one of the conveniences that I appreciate most is optical media backup to a hard drive. Writing BD-R at rates up to 15x is another benefit for Pioneer’s moderately-priced BDR-2208, even if I do rarely use it. The retail box also includes CyberLink Media Suite 8.

Hardware Installation

After following the installation method mentioned in its review, Noctua's NH-D14 presented a rare but recurring theme. Contact between the CPU cooler’s fan clips and a graphics card could have caused an electrical short if I’d powered-up the platform.

The protrusions are finger hooks that aid in fan installation and removal. Luckily, you only need to unhook one side of the fan in order to slide it over for removal. I used a pair of pliers to flatten this part of the clip. But be careful. Unlike mild-steel wire, the fan retainer appears to be tempered, and will likely break if bent too far.

While the top card can still be pushed over far enough to touch the cooler, that probably won’t happen when everything gets screwed down. Besides, it probably wouldn’t be a problem if the parts did touch, since the closest point is now between the GPU cooler support bracket and CPU cooler fins. That possible contact point is grounded on both sides.

Everything fits as it should, and we even have enough room to add a second front fan if needed. Since the PC-9N isn’t designed to hide cables, I turned the removable drive cage sideways and looped the extra length there.

Overclocking: Hot Air Is Bad, OK?

In the process of upgrading its firmware version 2.40 to support Ivy Bridge-E processors, ASRock unfortunately broke the overclocking functions of its X79 Extreme6. I could set any idle multiplier I wanted, but applying even the smallest load reverted back to Intel's default Turbo Boost ratios, even with Turbo Boost, EIST, and C-states disabled. And since the new motherboard firmware contains new Management Engine firmware, ASRock removed all previous versions from its servers.

I searched online for a rollback and found v.2.20 on a junk-ware site. It was also the Windows-executable version. I tried it in spite of the Management Engine, Windows-executable, and questionable source risks. I got a scare when the system wouldn’t boot, but disconnecting the power and engaging the CLR_CMOS button got the system back on track. Not recommended!

I was able to get the system stable at 1.35 V and 4.6 GHz for a few minutes before thermal throttling took over. Stepping back to 1.30 V and 4.4 GHz worked for a few more minutes, but again reached a thermal ceiling. Very warm air pouring very slowly off the back of a very large cooler in an open system was a sign. This giant, top-rated sink needed faster fans to cope with our processor’s severe thermal issues. I backed down to 4.2 GHz and 1.25 V.

Note that the 1.35 V RAM is not overclocked, even though I increased its voltage. Though it passed all of our previous stability tests at XMP defaults, our AVX-optimized Prime95 workload revealed that it wasn’t completely stable at anything less than 1.46 volts. Pushing past 1.56 volts didn’t offer any stability improvements, and the overclocking window between those two voltage levels was less than 100 MHz.

The fan profile for these EVGA GeForce GTX 760 graphics cards appears to push maximum speed at 80° Celsius, which seems like a great place to leave things. The middle card always ran the hottest, of course. Initially able to run the system for over an hour at 1200 MHz GPU and GDDR5-7760, consecutive gaming runs beyond that point forced me to spend several more hours lowering its overclock and retesting. All-day stability was eventually revealed at 1130 MHz GPU and GDDR5-6680.

Test System And Benchmarks

Test System And Benchmarks

The following tables include the stock and overclocked settings for this quarter's machine, along with what we achieved with our mini-ITX-based build. Under those details are our benchmark settings for your information.

Each new build gets a new opportunity for new drivers, since the old ones are given away every quarter. While overclocking issues will hamper the newer system’s six-core performance scores, a trio of 4 GB graphics cards gives me hope for a high-resolution gaming coup.

Results: 3DMark And PCMark

The new full-sized build tops its potent but puny predecessor in all three 3DMark disciplines. I can only hope that trend continues through the real-world benchmarks!

Unfortunately, PCMark is unfavorable to the X79’s server-oriented drive controller software. Because of that performance deficiency, I reverted to Microsoft’s Windows 8 AHCI driver for the overclocked configuration.

The three access patterns used in the SBM drive performance metric show the new build significantly behind, using Intel’s driver. Using Microsoft’s driver for its overclocked configuration gets me back on track.

Results: SiSoftware Sandra

Sandra's processor metrics scale readily as we add extra cores, so the benefits of this $2550 machine’s Sandy Bridge-E-based processor are obvious. Since they don’t represent real-world performance, though, they won’t help the new build’s value ranking.

A quad-channel memory controller could theoretically produce twice the memory bandwidth. I’ll happily settle for the 40% improvement shown.

Results: Battlefield 3 And Far Cry 3

Battlefield 3 demonstrates similar performance on both systems, in spite of the new build's potentially more powerful GPU configuration and extra CPU cores. It appears probable that this title won't scale much beyond four cores, and the previous build had better per-core performance.

Lower resolutions are less GPU-dependent, and the new system’s old CPU technology appears to hamper performance in Far Cry 3 at 1920x1080. The machines are roughly equal as we step up to the Surround-enabled resolutions.

Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim And F1 2012

We've seen performance in F1 2012 limited by a wide variety of bottlenecks, including the CPU and memory. Today's configuration appears CPU-limited at our lowest System Builder Marathon test settings, but that could be a reflection of its poor memory timings, too. The new build excels at our highest settings, but needs a better processor overclock to reach the previous machine’s stellar scaling.

Like other games, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim appears to benefit from four x86 cores, at most. My newer machine’s older CPU architecture falls behind at lower settings, in spite of its added core count.

Results: Audio And Video Encoding

Our iTunes workload is single-threaded, as is LAME. Lower clock rates and an older architecture consequently hurt the current build's performance in both lightweight benchmarks. An Ivy Bridge-E-based processor could have helped a little bit, but we simply have to accept that the highest-end CPUs are built for heavier lifting.

HandBrake and TotalCode Studio are both optimized for at least six cores, though the current build’s lower frequency and older core architecture reduce its lead.

Results: Adobe Creative Suite

The way our After Effects workload runs, it seems to divvy up memory based on core count. In a configuration with more cores, you need as much memory as possible to keep up. The scaling isn't linear; it seems like our four- and six-core configurations are pretty similar, with architectural foundations dictating the Ivy Bridge-based setup's small advantage.

Our Photoshop benchmarks use different optimizations for different tests, with the OpenCL test being generally more strenuous. I was hoping that the new build’s triple-GPU setup would boost its position. However, SLI doesn't appear to benefit compute performance. This quarter's machine is only able to win in our heavily-threaded CPU-oriented test.

Premiere likewise benefits from the current machine’s six-core CPU.

Results: Productivity

Our entire productivity suite is optimized for multi-core processors, so the system I'm presenting takes the top position up and down the charts. Scaling is a little better in Visual Studio 2010 compared to ABBYY FineReader, but the Core i7-3930K really needed a better overclock to build upon its dominance.

Results: File Compression

All three file compression utilities appear to prefer different attributes of this quarter's machine. In 7-Zip, for example, we're pretty sure that the extra Hyper-Threaded cores are bolstering performance, keeping my system in front of last quarter's. In WinRAR, which tends not to fully utilize all of the cores we give it, we're hypothesizing that extra shared L3 cache is helping the Core i7-3930K along. WinZip gains some from multiple cores working in parallel, but also its OpenCL-accelerated component appears to favor the new system's GeForce GTX 760s more than the dual-GPU 690.

Power, Heat, And Overall Performance

The new build uses a two-generation-old CPU architecture, but more cores and cache, along with a trio of enthusiast-class graphics cards to improve 3D performance potential. So far, the added GPUs have barely proven themselves more potent than Q2’s dual-GPU GeForce GTX 690 (a $1000 option), but we can already guess that they're going to hurt our power consumption measurements.

According to its 80 PLUS test sheet, a 981 W input pushes the current PC to its 850 W output limit. My concerns about a better overclock in the face of lower heat can now be laid to rest, since the better cooling needed to support higher voltage and CPU frequencies would have pushed the power supply past its rated ceiling anyway.

The new build runs hot, always near the point of thermal throttling when overclocked and loaded. Given the power numbers we saw, it’s probably best to leave this one at stock frequencies.

On the flip side, today's setup also performs best in every benchmark discipline except storage. I needed to remove Intel’s enterprise-oriented RSTe storage driver in order to correct that deficiency in its overclocked configuration.

Is Our Three-Way SLI-Based Setup Efficient? Can We Even Talk Value?

The concept behind this quarter’s high-end build was to use a larger ATX form factor to improve upon the previous machine in as many ways as possible, for the same money. Recently-expired discounts have pushed its price nearly 4% higher than when we placed our order, though new and remaining discounts should still make the machine a great overall value. For those who pay their own electric bills, efficiency is probably a greater disappointment than the price difference. Fortunately, we see some hope in a newer Ivy Bridge-E-based Core i7-4930K, manufactured on Intel's 22 nm node.

Sandy Bridge-E has always been a power hog, and a trio of graphics cards typically consumes more power than one dual-GPU card. Yet, I’m still surprised by the enormity of power consumption differences. Maybe I shouldn’t have been?

Remembering that the new machine was tested with Intel's slower RSTe storage driver in stock trim, and the faster Microsoft driver when overclocked, I ran an experiment with the stock configuration. The 20% gain from overclocking drops to around 15% when the new machine is tested at stock frequencies, but complemented by Microsoft's driver. Moreover, its stock-to-stock value rating jumps from 99.4% to 104.6%. Since the previous build lacked support for RSTe altogether, this quarter's effort becomes a better value at stock settings than its predecessor.

Overclocking is a different story. The previous machine was a supreme overclocker in spite of its small size, thanks to an elaborately-planned cooling system that made it the biggest mini-ITX machine we’d ever seen. The new build didn't overclock well at all. Part of this was the fault of a surprisingly-hot CPU, which somewhat soured our opinion of Sandy Bridge-E. Moreover, ASRock’s X79 Extreme6 didn't fare as well as we were hoping it would. I almost wish I paid $15 more for the lower-end Extreme4 and used a cheaper case to make up the price difference. There are good reasons why the X79 Extreme4 won a Tom's Hardware award and the Extreme6 did not.

And then there’s gaming. Overclocking provided the previous build a huge boost in average frames per second, while the current build barely sped up at all. If you don't overclock, you're going to love the 15% performance advantage at stock clock rates, while overclockers will be disappointed to further that advantage by a mere 7%. The previous build’s excellent overclock wins in spite of a far smaller form factor.

Maximizing Integrated Graphics: Data Rate Or Latency?

With data rates topping 6 GT/s on buses up to 384-bits wide, high-end graphics cards are hardly starved for memory bandwidth. Integrated engines, on the other hand, are still limited to a 128-bit aggregate pathway through two 64-bit channels. And then there are the lower data rates of DDR3 DIMMS versus GDDR5 packages. But throughput isn't the biggest issue those built-in GPUs face. They're necessarily a lot less complex, since they share die space with host processing resources. And then there's the matter of memory latency...

If we look back to when DDR2-533 CAS 3 was the way to go for exceptionally low latency, we saw a few enthusiasts trying to push those same modules down to CAS 2. These days, we see DDR3-1600 CAS 7 as a real possibility, and most tuners are having similar trouble pushing that memory to CAS 6. Even at DDR3-2133, we’re trying to hit CAS 8 when only CAS 9 appears achievable. Lo and behold, when we divide 2133 by eight, 1600 by six and 533.3 by two, we always get 266.6. Divide by two to get the bus frequency and invert the number to get cycle time, and what we’ve really been fighting for the past nine years is a memory turnaround time of 7.5 nanoseconds.

Still unable to reliably break past the 7.5 ns latency barrier, today’s performance search primarily focuses on data rates. We’ll still compare these six contenders to JEDEC-standard DDR3-1600 CAS 11 specs though. Here are each kit's specifications.

We chose JEDEC-standard DDR3-1600 as a starting point because we believe that anyone seriously interested in gaming on a platform with integrated graphics shouldn’t settle for less. We found a 16 GB dual-channel pair of those for $110.

Adata XPG V2 DDR3-2400

Adata’s part number AX3U2400W8G11-DMV gives you two 8 GB modules in a 16 GB kit rated for DDR3-2400 at CAS 11. Its V2 heat spreaders also push DIMM height to 1.7 inches.

Booting at DDR3-1333 CAS 9, simply selecting the right XMP profile gets most enthusiast-class motherboards to configure its 1.65 V-rated settings. Motherboards that lack overclocking capabilities may not be able to dial in the higher-than-standard voltage, which is why most of those don’t include XMP configuration.

Though AMD does not support Intel Extreme Memory Profiles, many motherboard manufacturers have their own BIOS workarounds to read and configure the module’s information. The above screen shot was taken with an Asus-designed AMD motherboard, which adds XMP configuration through its D.O.C.P. setting.

Adata DRAM carries a lifetime warranty in most countries, reducing coverage to 10 years in Austria, Germany, and France.

AMD Gamer Series RG2133

AMD Radeon Memory comprises several product families, but we’re more interested in the corresponding numbers. Two 8 GB modules rated at DDR3-2133 CAS 10 make up its 16 GB part number AG316G2130U2K kit.

AMD also gets honored with a second product image, if only because we can't actually see the modules through its cardboard box. An angled top on each heat spreader advertises that these are AMD-sanctioned parts.

Configuration data for AMD’s modules is full of surprises, such as an SPD (automatic configuration) mode of DDR3-1866 and a replacement for the long-forgotten EPP 2.0, called AMP, that allows AMD motherboards to automatically configure the higher voltage and looser timings of its DDR3-2133 rating. Intel-based systems are also welcomed with an XMP configuration, shown as “EXT #1” in the screenshot below.

Unlike its processors and graphics cards, AMD DRAM carries a lifetime warranty.

Crucial Ballistix Tactical DDR3-1866

Two 8 GB modules rated at DDR3-1866 CAS 9 make up Crucial’s 16 GB Ballistix Tactical BLT2KIT8G3D1869DT1TX0. Though its Web store uses sparsely-labeled packaging, our shopping experience turns up an additional data sticker on its designed-for-resale kits.

Booting at DDR3-1333 CAS 9, Crucial makes it easy to configure DDR3-1867 through XMP. The low 1.50 V rating would allow non-overclocking motherboards to also support its higher data rate, except that those same motherboards typically lack XMP configuration capability. Like the other products in this round-up, Ballastix Tactical is designed exclusively for the enthusiast PC market.

Crucial DRAM has a limited lifetime warranty.

G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1866

G.Skill is using a low price to shoot for a high value score with its part number F3-14900CL10D-16GBXL dual-channel 16 GB kit. The compromise you make is a latency penalty of CAS 10 for each of its 1.5”-tall 8 GB modules.

The height of its heat spreaders is the reason we occasionally switch to the firm’s similarly-priced Ares product line in our System Builder Marathon machines. In this kit, we find automatic configuration values of DDR3-1333 CAS 9 and semi-automatic XMP configurations of DDR3-1867 CAS 10, both at 1.50 V.

All G.Skill DRAM includes a limited lifetime warranty.

Mushkin Redline Ridgeback DDR3-2133

While its competition on the previous page goes cheap in the interest of improving value, Mushkin takes the other path with its 16 GB Redline Ridgeback 997121R kit. Each 8 GB module is rated at low CAS 9 timings and a high DDR3-2133 data rate.

Ridgeback DDR3-2133 boots at DDR3-1600 CAS 11, and is easily configurable to DDR3-2133 CAS 9 on most enthusiast-market motherboards by selecting its corresponding XMP profile. That selection also raises memory voltage by 10%.

Most enthusiast-class AMD motherboards have firmware workarounds to support this Intel-based memory configuration tool, though the few motherboards that don’t support XMP can reach these settings via manual configuration, too.

Save that receipt! Though we’ve never had any problems, Mushkin’s lifetime warranty policy is officially limited to the original purchaser.

Patriot Viper 3 DDR3-2400

Limited availability of Patriot’s top-rated PV316G240C0KRD kit forced us to look long and hard for a sub-$200 price, but a vendor that'd ship to the U.S. was eventually located in Canada. We’ve seen even lower prices in Asia and Europe, but those sources have since vanished.

Standing 1.625” tall, each 8 GB module is detected as DDR3-1600 CAS 11 the first time you boot up. Its DDR3-2400 CAS 10-rated performance settings are easily configurable though XMP selection in firmware of most enthusiast-class motherboards. A 10% voltage increase is required to keep the modules running there, and that’s why non-enthusiast motherboards typically lack XMP.

Some AMD-compatible motherboards also lack Intel’s XMP technology, but most have workarounds such as the D.O.C.P. mode found on our Asus test board. Anyone whose motherboard supports manual configuration can also use that option to configure these kits appropriately.

Keep your receipt! Though Patriot’s lifetime warranty has earned the firm great respect with overclockers, language in its policy could allow the company to deny a claim to anyone who can’t authenticate their original purchase.

Test Settings And Overclocking

When we heard that AMD’s previous-generation motherboards would work with its new-generation processors, we were happy to pull out Asus’ top-overclocking F2A85-V Pro and give it a simple BIOS update.

Our Asus Z87-Pro sample already had firmware of similar vintage to the F2A85-V Pro’s update, so we left it alone.

Scuttlebutt says that AMD’s A10-6800K reaches 4.5 GHz without much effort, but our sample needed 1.425 V to achieve complete stability. It would easily run 4.4 GHz at 1.30 V, so perhaps 4.5 GHz wasn’t a good target?

The problem with 4.4 GHz was that we didn’t want to give the firm a frequency handicap in an article that includes Intel. Our Core i7-4770K was easily running 4.5 GHz at 1.250 V maximum, and we began testing before AMD's sample arrived.

And so the test began with the Intel processor at 4.50 GHz, secure in the knowledge that both CPUs would support DDR3-2400 via overclocking. Two of the kits were DDR3-2400-rated. And one of the kits would even run at DDR3-2666.

AMD’s Richland-based A10 pushed better timings out of these modules at several settings, but its integrated graphics engine was not stable at DDR3-2400. After several attempts to adjust memory controller and DRAM voltage to compensate that instability, I eventually found that increasing the APU from the stock 1.20 V to 1.50 V granted temporary stability. This allowed theoretical XMP-2400 performance data to be gathered on the AMD platform, but you’ll see those results discredited throughout the article.

The System Builder Marathon gaming suite is easily adapted to integrated graphics performance evaluation by lowering its resolution and/or details to Intel HD Graphics 4600-compliant levels. The HD 8760D won’t even break a sweat.

Results: Sandra Bandwidth

Sandra's Memory Bandwidth module assuages concerns about the AMD platform’s instability at DDR3-2400, showing similar performance at DDR3-2133 via reduced latencies.

The bandwidth numbers reported by Sandra actually drop when moving from DDR3-2133 to DDR3-2400 on the Intel platform.

Results: Sandra Latency

Remembering back to this article's introduction, it looks like we’re always just one cycle above a 7.5 nanosecond latency at every frequency setting. That leads us to expect relatively flat scaling in Sandra’s latency test, and the AMD platform nearly complies. The only standout is the high stock latency for G.Skill’s low-cost DDR3-1866.

Intel appears to achieve lower latency with its memory controller compared to AMD, exaggerating the difference between a DDR3-2400 cycle (0.8 ns) and a DDR3-1600 cycle (1.25 ns).

Results: Battlefield 3

The AMD platform isn’t stable at the DDR3-2400 settings supported by Adata and Patriot, so we can ignore those two XMP readings and be thankful that Battlefield 3 performs similarly at DDR3-2133. Un-charted DDR3-1600 CAS 11 reached a mere 36 FPS.

Poor Intel. Its fastest desktop integrated graphics engine is so much weaker that its superior memory controller can’t compensate. Battlefield 3 scaling gets squished into a somewhat-playable 33 to 36 frames per second.

Results: Far Cry 3

Far Cry 3 offers great visuals, and we’d hate to run it at anything less than the Medium quality preset and 720p. Fortunately, the AMD platform pulls through smoothly. Even uncharted DDR3-1600 CAS 11 reaches 36 FPS.

Extra memory bandwidth offers little help to Intel’s more modest integrated GPU, with the game stuck at roughly 30 FPS.

Results: F1 2012

F1 2012 demonstrates fairly large performance differences between DDR3-1600 and DDR3-2133, even with memory timings optimized. Non-optimized DDR3-1600 CAS 11 allows a still-reasonable 60 FPS, but that’s 15 FPS behind Mushkin’s DDR3-2133 CAS 9 configuration.

Several of our previous reviews showed F1 2012 to be CPU-bottlenecked at lower frame rates and DRAM-bottlenecked at higher frame rates. Intel’s modest HD Graphics 4600 engine presents an even tighter bottleneck, though it still achieves approximately 60 FPS in this title.

Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Surprisingly, the best Skyrim performance is reached by G.Skill’s low-cost RipjawsX DDR3-1866 CAS 10, at least after optimizing it to DDR3-2133 CAS 9. Mushkin’s memory is rated at DDR3-2133 CAS 9 and doesn’t need any further optimizations to reach 49 FPS. Alternatively, the AMD platform’s stability limits eventually cause the Adata and Patriot DDR3-2400 samples to crash after measuring the very same 49 FPS.

The Intel platform is stable at DDR3-2400, but that doesn’t make Skyrim any smoother. Its weak graphics engine performs best with Mushkin’s DDR3-2133 CAS 9.