Adata’s Premier SP550 480GB SSD reviewed

TLC NAND has proliferated throughout the storage market, particularly at the lower end. “Budget” is now essentially a code word for TLC in the industry, as cheap MLC drives like Crucial’s BX100 or Mushkin’s Reactor have become a dying breed. These days, hardly a manufacturer can be found without a TLC-powered, entry-level SSD in its lineup.

Adata loosed an arrow aimed squarely at the budget market earlier this year with its Premier SP550 family of SSDs. This TLC drive is available in a range of capacities from 120GB to 960GB. Check out the specifications of each drive below.

Adata SP550
Capacity Max sequential (MB/s) Max random (IOps)
Read Write Read Write
120GB 560 410 60k 70k
240GB 560 510 75k 75k
480GB 560 510 75k 75k
960GB 520 510 80k 35k

Adata sent us the 480GB version of the SP550 to test. Serendipitously, our dataset includes 480GB versions of OCZ’s Trion 100 and Trion 150, as well as Crucial’s BX100. These apt points of comparison will give us a good sense of the SP550’s relative strengths and weaknesses.

Thus far, it may sound like this is shaping up to be another review of a run-of-the-mill TLC drive. While that may yet prove to be the case, crack the SP550 open and there’s at least one thing we haven’t seen before: 16-nm flash from SK Hynix. These 128Gb chips are distributed into eight quad-die packages, and Adata puts four of those packages on each side of the drive’s PCB. We’ve seen all manner of TLC chips from Micron, Samsung, Toshiba, and Sandisk in the past, but these Hynix packages are a first in the TR storage labs.

Despite its relatively infrequent mentions around here, Hynix consistently stakes out about 10% of the world’s NAND market share, according to Statista. Apart from powering Hynix’s own SL300 series of SSDs, the company’s 16-nm TLC has found its way into even Intel’s debut TLC drive, the 540S series. In building that drive with Hynix NAND, Intel quietly skipped over longtime partner Micron’s 16-nm TLC product. Micron’s TLC did leave us feeling disappointed when we took it for a spin in the BX200, so we can understand Intel’s decision.

Speaking of which, the SP550 shares a component with the BX200: Silicon Motion’s SM2256 controller. Until now, we’ve only tested the SM2256 in the BX200, so it’ll be nice to find out whether this SM2246EN successor is capable of greater things when divorced from Micron’s TLC flash. The SM2256 employs a pseudo-SLC caching scheme, so we should see some higher-than-otherwise-expected burst speeds out of the SP550.

The Premier SP550 480GB currently goes for $112.99 at the Egg or a few bucks more at Amazon. The SP550 range starts at $40 for the 120GB model and ranges up to $240 for the 960GB drive. Adata backs the SP550 series with a three-year warranty, a pretty standard timeframe for a budget TLC product.

Now that we know what we’re looking at, let’s subject the SP550 to our gauntlet of tests and see what it can do.

 

IOMeter — Sequential and random performance

IOMeter fuels much of our latest storage test suite, including our sequential and random I/O tests. These tests are run across the full capacity of the drive at two queue depths. The QD1 tests simulate a single thread, while the QD4 results emulate a more demanding desktop workload. For perspective, 87% of the requests in our old DriveBench 2.0 trace of real-world desktop activity have a queue depth of four or less. Clicking the buttons below the graphs switches between results charted at the different queue depths.

Our sequential tests use a relatively large 128KB block size.



The SP550’s sequential reads speeds are impressive. At both queue depths, it reads as fast as anything else we’ve got (except for our crowd of PCIe drives, of course). Unfortunately, the drive’s sequential writes are lackluster. To its slight credit, it manages to edge out our record-holder for the worst sequential write performance, Crucial’s BX200. But that’s a hollow victory when you consider that even the decrepit Intel X25-M writes faster. Hopefully the SP550’s random performance will prove stronger—otherwise, I fear for the drive’s place in our overall performance index.



Thankfully, the SP550 turns out to deliver reasonable random numbers. Random reads are a bit pokey, but random writes at both queue depths are more than acceptable. The SP550 punches far above its weight class here, beating some much more expensive drives.

 

Sustained and scaling I/O rates

Our sustained IOMeter test hammers drives with 4KB random writes for 30 minutes straight. It uses a queue depth of 32, a setting which should result in higher speeds that saturate each drive’s overprovisioned area more quickly. This lengthy—and heavy—workload isn’t indicative of typical PC use, but it provides a sense of how the drives react when they’re pushed to the brink.

We’re reporting input-output operations per second (IOPS) rather than response times for these tests. Click the buttons below the graph to switch between SSDs.


To show the data in a slightly different light, we’ve graphed the peak random-write rate and the average, steady-state speed over the last minute of the test.

This test shows that the SP550 doesn’t wholly rely on SM2256’s pseudo-SLC caching as a crutch. It beats the planar TLC competition—the Trion 100, Trion 150, and BX100—by a solid margin. The SP550’s steady-state write rate is even fast enough to keep up with some MLC-equipped terabyte-class drives, like the SSD370 and the Reactor. Chalk this up as a win for the SP550, as it’s proved to be the best-performing planar TLC drive we’ve tested when it comes to sustained random write performance.

Our final IOMeter test examines performance scaling across a broad range of queue depths. We ramp all the way up to a queue depth of 128. Don’t expect AHCI-based drives to scale past 32, though—that’s the maximum depth of their native command queues.

For this test, we use a database access pattern comprising 66% reads and 33% writes, all of which are random. The test runs after 30 minutes of continuous random writes that put the drives in a simulated used state. Click the buttons below the graph to switch between the different drives. And note that the P3700 plot uses a much larger scale.


As always, we don’t expect consumer-oriented drives to scale particularly well, but the SP550 actually does seem to scale meaningfully at least until QD8. Let’s take a look at it in context.


As it did in our sustained tests, the SP550 comes out looking quite a bit better than the Trion 150 and BX200. It’s a little of shy of catching the 850 EVO, but hey, this is planar NAND, after all.

This drive’s sequential and random rates may have been a bit of a mixed bag, but this page of tests has been all good for the SP550. Let’s see what it does with some real-world workloads.

 

TR RoboBench — Real-world transfers

RoboBench trades synthetic tests with random data for real-world transfers with a range of file types. Developed by our in-house coder, Bruno “morphine” Ferreira, this benchmark relies on the multi-threaded robocopy command build into Windows. We copy files to and from a wicked-fast RAM disk to measure read and write performance. We also cut the RAM disk out of the loop for a copy test that transfers the files to a different location on the SSD.

Robocopy uses eight threads by default, and we’ve also run it with a single thread. Our results are split between two file sets, whose vital statistics are detailed below. The compressibility percentage is based on the size of the file set after it’s been crunched by 7-Zip.

  Number of files Average file size Total size Compressibility
Media 459 21.4MB 9.58GB 0.8%
Work 84,652 48.0KB 3.87GB 59%

The media set is made up of large movie files, high-bitrate MP3s, and 18-megapixel RAW and JPG images. There are only a few hundred files in total, and the data set isn’t amenable to compression. The work set comprises loads of TR files, including documents, spreadsheets, and web-optimized images. It also includes a stack of programming-related files associated with our old Mozilla compiling test and the Visual Studio test on the next page. The average file size is measured in kilobytes rather than megabytes, and the files are mostly compressible.

RoboBench’s write and copy tests run after the drives have been put into a simulated used state with 30 minutes of 4KB random writes. The pre-conditioning process is scripted, as is the rest of the test, ensuring that drives have the same amount of time to recover.

Let’s take a look at the media set first. The buttons switch between read, write, and copy results.



The media set corroborates the story told by our IOMeter sequential tests. The SP550 is above reproach on the read side, but the writes are just…weak. Again, it does enjoy a solid margin of victory over the BX200, but that’s a low bar.

Next up, the work set. The SP550 should do better here, according to our IOMeter random write runs.



IOMeter told us no lies. The SP550 turns in a fine performance with the work set, falling close to the middle of the pack across read, write, and copy tests, whether it’s with one or eight threads.

RoboBench reaffirmed that sequential writes are the fly in the SP550’s ointment, but the drive’s performance has satisfied us otherwise. The only thing left to check is how the drive fares as a primary boot drive.

 

Boot times

Until now, all of our tests have been conducted with the SSDs connected as secondary storage. This next batch uses them as system drives.

We’ll start with boot times measured two ways. The bare test depicts the time between hitting the power button and reaching the Windows desktop, while the loaded test adds the time needed to load four applications—Avidemux, LibreOffice, GIMP, and Visual Studio Express—automatically from the startup folder. Our old boot tests focused on the time required to load the OS, but these new ones cover the entire process, including drive initialization.

Wanna boot Windows off of an SP550? Go right ahead, it’ll do it as well as any of the rest of ’em. Boot times are just fine.

Load times

Next, we’ll tackle load times with two sets of tests. The first group focuses on the time required to load larger files in a collection of desktop applications. We open a 790MB 4K video in Avidemux, a 30MB spreadsheet in LibreOffice, and a 523MB image file in the GIMP. In the Visual Studio Express test, we open a 159MB project containing source code for the LLVM toolchain. Thanks to Rui Figueira for providing the project code.

The SP550 loads up our productivity applications quickly and unremarkably. Let’s move on to games.

The SP550 loads games largely as fast as the rest of the SATA competition. f you need a primary boot drive, you can’t go wrong with an SP550. Or literally anything else without spinning platters.

That’s it for our benchmarking suite, so read on for our testing methods.

 

Test notes and methods

Here are the essential details for all the drives we tested:

  Interface Flash controller NAND
Adata Premier SP550 480GB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2256 16-nm SK Hynix TLC
Adata XPG SX930 240GB SATA 6Gbps JMicron JMF670H 16-nm Micron MLC
Crucial BX100 500GB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2246EN 16-nm Micron MLC
Crucial BX200 480GB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2256 16-nm Micron TLC
Crucial MX200 500GB SATA 6Gbps Marvell 88SS9189 16-nm Micron MLC
Crucial MX300 750GB SATA 6Gbps Marvell 88SS1074 32-layer Micron 3D TLC
Intel X25-M G2 160GB SATA 3Gbps Intel PC29AS21BA0 34-nm Intel MLC
Intel 335 Series 240GB SATA 6Gbps SandForce SF-2281 20-nm Intel MLC
Intel 730 Series 480GB SATA 6Gbps Intel PC29AS21CA0 20-nm Intel MLC
Intel 750 Series 1.2TB PCIe Gen3 x4 Intel CH29AE41AB0 20-nm Intel MLC
Intel DC P3700 800GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Intel CH29AE41AB0 20-nm Intel MLC
Mushkin Reactor 1TB SATA 6Gbps Silicon Motion SM2246EN 16-nm Micron MLC
OCZ Arc 100 240GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
OCZ Trion 100 480GB SATA 6Gbps Toshiba TC58 A19-nm Toshiba TLC
OCZ Trion 150 480GB SATA 6Gbps Toshiba TC58 15-nm Toshiba TLC
OCZ Vector 180 240GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
OCZ Vector 180 960GB SATA 6Gbps Indilinx Barefoot 3 M10 A19-nm Toshiba MLC
Plextor M6e 256GB PCIe Gen2 x2 Marvell 88SS9183 19-nm Toshiba MLC
Samsung 850 EV0 250GB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MGX 32-layer Samsung TLC
Samsung 850 EV0 1TB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MEX 32-layer Samsung TLC
Samsung 850 Pro 500GB SATA 6Gbps Samsung MEX 32-layer Samsung MLC
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Samsung UBX 32-layer Samsung MLC
Samsung SM951 512GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Samsung S4LN058A01X01 16-nm Samsung MLC
Samsung XP941 256GB PCIe Gen2 x4 Samsung S4LN053X01 19-nm Samsung MLC
Toshiba OCZ RD400 512GB PCIe Gen3 x4 Toshiba 15-nm Toshiba MLC
Transcend SSD370 256GB SATA 6Gpbs Transcend TS6500 Micron or SanDisk MLC
Transcend SSD370 1TB SATA 6Gpbs Transcend TS6500 Micron or SanDisk MLC

All the SATA SSDs were connected to the motherboard’s Z97 chipset. The M6e was connected to the Z97 via the motherboard’s M.2 slot, which is how we’d expect most folks to run that drive. Since the XP941 and 950 Pro requires more lanes, they were connected to the CPU via a PCIe adapter card. The 750 Series and DC P3700 were hooked up to the CPU via the same full-sized PCIe slot.

We used the following system for testing:

Processor Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz
Motherboard Asus Z97-Pro
Firmware 2601
Platform hub Intel Z97
Platform drivers Chipset: 10.0.0.13

RST: 13.2.4.1000

Memory size 16GB (2 DIMMs)
Memory type Adata XPG V3 DDR3 at 1600 MT/s
Memory timings 11-11-11-28-1T
Audio Realtek ALC1150 with 6.0.1.7344 drivers
System drive Corsair Force LS 240GB with S8FM07.9 firmware
Storage Crucial BX100 500GB with MU01 firmware

Crucial BX200 480GB with MU01.4 firmware

Crucial MX200 500GB with MU01 firmware

Intel 335 Series 240GB with 335u firmware

Intel 730 Series 480GB with L2010400 firmware

Intel 750 Series 1.2GB with 8EV10171 firmware

Intel DC P3700 800GB with 8DV10043 firmware

Intel X25-M G2 160GB with 8820 firmware

Plextor M6e 256GB with 1.04 firmware

OCZ Trion 100 480GB with 11.2 firmware

OCZ Trion 150 480GB with 12.2 firmware

OCZ Vector 180 240GB with 1.0 firmware

OCZ Vector 180 960GB with 1.0 firmware

Samsung 850 EVO 250GB with EMT01B6Q firmware

Samsung 850 EVO 1TB with EMT01B6Q firmware

Samsung 850 Pro 500GB with EMXM01B6Q firmware

Samsung 950 Pro 512GB with 1B0QBXX7 firmware

Samsung XP941 256GB with UXM6501Q firmware

Transcend SSD370 256GB with O0918B firmware

Transcend SSD370 1TB with O0919A firmware

Power supply Corsair AX650 650W
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Operating system Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Thanks to Asus for providing the systems’ motherboards, to Intel for the CPUs, to Adata for the memory, to Fractal Design for the cases, and to Corsair for the system drives and PSUs. And thanks to the drive makers for supplying the rest of the SSDs.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

Some further notes on our test methods:

  • To ensure consistent and repeatable results, the SSDs were secure-erased before every component of our test suite. For the IOMeter database, RoboBench write, and RoboBench copy tests, the drives were put in a simulated used state that better exposes long-term performance characteristics. Those tests are all scripted, ensuring an even playing field that gives the drives the same amount of time to recover from the initial used state.

  • We run virtually all our tests three times and report the median of the results. Our sustained IOMeter test is run a second time to verify the results of the first test and additional times only if necessary. The sustained test runs for 30 minutes continuously, so it already samples performance over a long period.

  • Steps have been taken to ensure the CPU’s power-saving features don’t taint any of our results. All of the CPU’s low-power states have been disabled, effectively pegging the frequency at 3.5GHz. Transitioning between power states can affect the performance of storage benchmarks, especially when dealing with short burst transfers.

The test systems’ Windows desktop was set at 1920×1080 at 60Hz. Most of the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

Conclusions

We’ve collected all the data we need, so it’s time to see where the SP550 falls in our rankings. We distill the overall performance rating using an older SATA SSD as a baseline. To compare each drive, we then take the geometric mean of a basket of results from our test suite. Only drives which have been through the entire test suite on our current rig are represented.

The SP550 480GB lands a respectable bit ahead of the Trion 100 and BX200 in the final standings, but it doesn’t quite beat out the Trion 150. Bear in mind, however, that the Trion 150 was Toshiba’s shot at redemption after essentially calling a mulligan on the uninspiring Trion 100. Adata has landed much closer to the mark than either Toshiba or Micron initially managed to with their TLC budget drives, so while the Trion 150 edges the SP550 out overall, we’re mostly content with the level of performance that Adata’s drive offers. The SP550 proves that Silicon Motion’s SM2256 can do more than the BX200 delivered, and SK Hynix’s TLC leaves a far better taste in our mouths than Micron’s planar TLC did.

The one problem with the SP550 is its downright pokey sequential write performance, which our overall graph doesn’t show. The SP550 can’t even beat out the Intel X25-M in this area, and Intel’s drive was a slow sequential writer back in 2008. While that sequential write figure might not matter for a bulk-storage drive that’ll be filled once and read from often, it might cause problems for some workloads. Toshiba’s OCZ Trion 150 is much faster in the sequential write department.

Now let’s throw up our scatter plot to see what the pricing landscape looks like.

The SP550 is near the left edge of our data points, meaning it’s among the cheapest drives per gigabyte right now. The $112.99 it commands at Newegg works out to about $0.24 per gigabyte. The Trion 150 is ever so slightly cheaper right now, though, and I’d have a tough time recommending the SP550 over it. However, these prices change at the drop of a hat, and if the shifting winds of sales ever price the SP550 lower than the Trion 150, the two drives are close enough in performance that I’d snag the Adata without a second thought—assuming I could live with its sequential write performance, anyway.

So that’s the situation. As budget TLC drives go, the Trion 150 does it slightly better, but Adata’s fledgling TLC effort is still respectable. The Premier SP550’s rather sluggish sequential writes are balanced out by strong burst and sustained random writes. Overall, we think this drive is a worthy challenger in the low-end SSD market, and we’re curious to see how Adata can improve in this space with time.

Comments closed
    • richardjhonson
    • 3 years ago
    • BIF
    • 3 years ago

    Why do we keep going backward in capacities?

    480GB is the wrong direction. I want to see an affordable 4TB SSD option in a laptop form factor. 512 GB is commonplace, as is 1TB. Why even bother coming under 512 GB; that’s even worse than an insincere apology.

    What’s the price on this thing?

      • sweatshopking
      • 3 years ago

      I just bought a 240GB for a new computer I was building and I felt like a king.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    My Lenovo laptop from 2012 has a Core i5-2450M, which is totally fine for office stuff outside the office. The only problem is its anemic 750GB mech hard drive. I’ve been thinking of getting an SSD for it but I don’t wanna spend a lot of one and a 120GB or 240GB model seems inadequate. Maybe these Adata drives are the way to go. 480GB seems good enough and $120 is just ok.

      • HERETIC
      • 3 years ago

      Almost any SSD is better than spinning rust……………
      But I’d look and see how much extra a 850 EVO or even a 750 EVO would cost.
      They don’t seem to suffer as most TLC drives do when they get 80% full,and
      are in general more responsive.(what spinning blue thing)

      Another thing to note-Laptop vendors around that vintage sometimes only
      wired up the HD to SATA 2 on the southbridge. Even when SATA 3 was available.
      Would still put in a SSD thro.
      good luck.

        • ronch
        • 3 years ago

        I think the Toshiba Trion 150 is one of the better options in this price range. Got burned by the 840 EVO so I’m not too fond of Samsung right now but I reckon they’ve learned what they needed to learn, so they’re good too.

          • HERETIC
          • 3 years ago

          Better than some-but I still have a nagging feeling OCZ/Toshiba have been using us as
          crash test dummies with that Phison s10.

          And Sammy is miles ahead on QD1-IOPS (what gives SSD’s that snappy feeling)
          Where I live there’s only a few dollars between 750 evo and 150 trion-thro as you
          say-the memory of the 840, and is the 750 any better? Makes it hard to recommend
          anything but the 850 evo…………………

    • HERETIC
    • 3 years ago

    Hi Tony,
    What happened to the WD/Sandisk ultra 2 in the charts?(I’m sure you reviewed it recently)
    In my opinion that is the only drive outside of Samsung that has a grip on planer TLC.

    Everything else seems a race to the bottom.
    Useful as secondary/game drive,not something one would want as a boot drive in a desktop.
    And even in a compromised lappy-85% full is definitely not a strength of TLC………………….

      • weaktoss
      • 3 years ago

      The Ultra II was reviewed in the transitional period when I only had one of the decommissioned endurance experiment rigs to test on. So it’s never been through the test suite on the regular primary storage rig. You raise a good point though, so maybe I’ll dig out the Ultra II and put in on the short list of drives I’ve been meaning to re-bench.

        • chrcoluk
        • 3 years ago

        Also do the same with the 850 pro please.

    • chµck
    • 3 years ago

    What happened to including a spinning disk for comparison?

      • Noinoi
      • 3 years ago

      I think at some point SSDs are fast enough to outclass HDDs significantly in non-sequential write situations that it made sense to remove HDDs from the comparisons.

      Also, their storage bench changed at the same time, I think? Old data needed up no longer useful.

      As for me, my personal thoughts are probably, well, even a TLC drive shouldn’t have sequential write speeds going under what a modern HDD can do. That’s a rather glaring weak spot – especially when you run into situations where you do need to write a lot of data in a single go to the drive, such as during large file copy operations.

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    It’s kinda nice to see the pricing on a few drives pushing to put a significant distance between themselvess and the easy pick of a 1TB 850 Evo. For use as a single drive for system and games I would still fork out the extra for a known high level of performance, but entering the mostly-storage territory for secondary drives and beyond, the 960GB Trion 150 looks like a tasty alternative. Maybe Samsung will be forced to put a 1TB 750 Evo out the door, but I haven’t even seen any rumors on that.

    • USGroup1
    • 3 years ago

    “The SP550 480GB lands a respectable bit ahead of the Trion 100 and BX100 in the final standings,…”

    No it’s not, BX100 is at 211% in your overall performance chart, the fact is BX100 (last year’s budget drive) is faster than this overall.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 3 years ago

      Simple typo, fixed.

    • LocalCitizen
    • 3 years ago

    any word from Adata why 960GB specs are so bad?

      • Vhalidictes
      • 3 years ago

      Likely it’s a controller limitation, since all the drives use the same Flash.

        • LocalCitizen
        • 3 years ago

        but it shares the controller with bx200, which doesn’t have a low write IOps on 960GB drive. in fact, i don’t know of another drive that has a lower write IO at 960GB than lower capacity drives. it is very very strange.

        i almost grabbed the 960GB version of this drive, but i noticed the low IO spec, and stayed away. but i do wonder if it makes a big difference in real world usage.

    • Waco
    • 3 years ago

    I’m becoming more and more less caring about sequential / sustained writes. If they’re fast enough, and reads are as fast as is common these days…why care?

    Perhaps a variation of the performance / cost graph that ignores write performance?

    Unless you have a very very specific use case, these seem ideal for the tradeoffs.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 3 years ago

      They’re not “fast enough” with this drive.

        • chµck
        • 3 years ago

        if it’s fast enough for the parents, it’s fast enough for me!

        • Waco
        • 3 years ago

        100 MB/s? Seems pretty good, especially given it’s good with random writes.

        Do people generally have such write-intensive workloads? I’d bet almost nobody does, and if someone does, they know not to buy these.

        • Vhalidictes
        • 3 years ago

        Correct. A fast (crappy) 3TB Seagate disk from 3 years ago can push 150MBps in sequential transfers. Anything approaching 100MBps or lower is literally competing with spinning rust when random performance isn’t an issue.

        In other words, in certain situations this drive is slow enough to be noticeable to the user.

          • chµck
          • 3 years ago

          I can’t put a 3TB disk into my laptop

            • RAGEPRO
            • 3 years ago

            [url=https://www.techpowerup.com/208696/toshiba-launches-industrys-largest-capacity-3tb-2-5-inch-hdd<]Why not?[/url<]

          • Waco
          • 3 years ago

          150 MB/s in a perfect world, only writing to the beginning of the disk, and with a perfectly sequential write…

          AKA not real world for anyone. Random performance almost *always* matters. A drive that can write at 100 MB/s for any workload is worth far more to general users than one that can do 300 MB/s for sequential, but only 10 MB/s for (big) random…

            • jihadjoe
            • 3 years ago

            I have a 30% full Barracuda 3TB and it’s actually giving me 190MB/s sequential reads, 158-170MB/s sequential writes.

            Random R/W hardly matters at all because I just use it to hold music and movies, so almost all accesses are sequential. The OS on a separate SSD which is where the random R/W happens.

            [url=http://i.imgur.com/d9Rq4ql.png<]Crystal Disk Mark screenshot[/url<]

            • Waco
            • 3 years ago

            Bulk storage on SSDs isn’t exactly a common use case. Even then, do you really care how fast it writes (once) versus how many times you read from it?

            I guess I just don’t get the use case where streaming writes matter for the home user.

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 3 years ago

        I would still take this over a platter drive if I could only have one. In every day use (loading games, booting, etc.) it would kick the rust off a metallic platter.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      The sustained writes are probably OK for a Steam library, but I wouldn’t put my OS on there, even if a lot of the writes are random.

      Also, the Trion 150 price per GB is slightly lower, and it performs better. Might as well go that route.

      • just brew it!
      • 3 years ago

      Except that bottom-feeding TLC drives like these have sequential write speeds that are substantially worse than even a 5400 RPM laptop HDD. That’s not “fast enough”, in my opinion.

        • Waco
        • 3 years ago

        Why not? What SSD use cases demand streaming bandwidth for writes as compared to reads?

          • just brew it!
          • 3 years ago

          Any time you copy a file of non-trivial size you’re relying on streaming write performance.

            • Waco
            • 3 years ago

            Right. And how many sources are > 100 MB/s in common uses? And when is 100 MB/s for copying files too slow?

            Seems like a stretch, honestly.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This