Results – M550 and MX100
To get more of an apples to apples comparison, we subjected a few prior generation Micron samples to a similar test sequence:
- Partition full drive capacity and format NTFS.
- Perform a truncated round of benchmarks to simulate an OS install.
- Fill to 30% in 10% increments (with wait periods each 10%).
- Perform abbreviated random workload on the first 10% to simulate OS file writes over time (registry, log files, etc).
- Fill to 50% in 10% increments (with waits after each 10%).
- Perform truncated round of benchmarks to evaluate performance.
- Evaluate sequential read speed of first 50% (fragmentation check).
We didn't take these to 95% since getting them to 50% showed enough consistency to prove there is negligible change as these are filled. To show this, first lets look at the consistency of write speeds as the drives are being filled. The following will be sequences of each 10% write increment for each sample:
M550 128GB:
M550 256GB:
X100 512GB:
ATTO:
As you can see, there's not really any noticable difference in write speeds as these drives are filled. The same goes for ATTO results. Here's one example, from the MX100:
Empty:
50% full:
The two capacities of the M550 gave the same consistent results.
Fragmented file reads:
Recall that at the 30% mark, we initiated a brief (few minute) random workload within the first 10% of the data written to the drive. Once we reached 50%, we read back all written data sequentially, this gave us some interesting results with this new test method:
M550 128GB:
(minimum: 271 MB/sec)
M550 256GB:
(minimum: 355 MB/sec)
MX100 512GB:
(minimum: 382 MB/sec)
Note the first 10% (20% of the above 50% total copy) in the above three images. There is a clear reduction in read speed from areas that had been randomly written to. This effect is likely due to the way the controller handles its internal data tables, and how those entries interact with reading data back from the flash. Random writes may force an increased number of table entries, as well as that flash being written in a more fragmented fashion. Both of these stack up and result in lower read speeds from those areas which had been fragmented in-place. Real-world causes for this are Windows registry files, pagefile (swapfile), hibernation data files, VMware hard disk files (VMDK), among other things. Reading this data back at a slower rate can impact performance, which is why the effect is important to point out here.
Now to try these workloads on the 840 EVO and M600…
If there are more reviews
If there are more reviews like this where people are not able to get their heads around the Micron controller concept, they should simply release the successor to the MX100 line with their low cost standard controller (upgraded of course). This would become the go to SSD for millions. A consistent 256GB SSD for $80 sounds much better than the new dinky M600 for anything.
The M600 looks like a lemon to me at the moment.
There’s the rub. Testing in
There's the rub. Testing in this manner revealed that the MX100 has issues as well – just different ones. See the bottom of page 4 for details and explanation.
Makes one wonder if the
Makes one wonder if the marvel controller’s quirk is exclusive to the 88SS9189. I know sandisk uses previous revisions of the controller in their ssd’s.
Different companies, and different firmwares though. Probably not likely.
I’m a SSD neophyte, my
I’m a SSD neophyte, my primary usage: Photoshop, Lightroom, Audio recording, (minimal video)
I’m going to replace my 1TB Boot HD with a 1/2TB SSD (480,500,512). I’m leaning to the Crucial M550 over the M100 (only $20>), some say the M550 “is built for heavier use”. (?) I was looking at the Samsung but not after Twits “Padre SJ” and this review discuss slowdown issues.
Do the M550’s have the any slowdown issues? Or is this only the M600 due to the different/new controller?
Allyn M. talked about the M550 on July 25, 2014. (no “review”)
Q: Are the potential specs of the M600 series worth waiting for it to come out, or should I just pull the trigger on the M550 and stop waiting?
Thanks,
Dokk
ALLYN
A SANDISK ULTRA 2-Thru
ALLYN
A SANDISK ULTRA 2-Thru the same tests would be a great addition,
as the third variation of this tech……………..
The Sandisk Ultra II drive
The Sandisk Ultra II drive uses the Marvell 88SS9187 instead of the 88SS9189 controller and uses different firmware. So in my opinion it’s probably doubtful. Gonna take some months to also test whether or not sandisk figured a way around the leaky tlc problem.
My info tells me Sandisk is
My info tells me Sandisk is using-
9190-4ch for 120 and 240 GB drives,
and 9189 for larger drives……..
But it’s the tech i would like to see compared.
Sammy has a static cache,
Micron is using dynamic,
Sandisk is using on chip copy……………
Hmmm on closer inspection it
Hmmm on closer inspection it does seem that Sandisk likes to variate which Marvell controller is used on a drive or even capacity basis.
Example, the sandisk x300s drive uses the 9189 controller.