Performance Results and Potential Issues
Given the higher performance of these newer Thunderbolt 3 capable parts, it seemed fitting to apply a more demanding workload, so I pointed our PCPer Test Suite at the round of test samples. This suite is actually well suited for external use, as the sequential test was tailored to replicate typical file copies, and the random and mixed performance metrics help demonstrate application loading and heavier usage with background writes taking place. I've left an intentional break in the results near the bottom. Results above the break are the external drives tested on an ASUS X370 Prime with the Thunderbolt EX3 adapter card installed. Results below the break are NVMe and SATA parts directly connected to our standard X99 storage testbed, included to give a matter of perspective vs. natively connected storage devices. I'm skipping the usual test suite introduction for this abbreviated review, but details of the test suite are available here.
Sequential
Regarding sequential read performance, the X5 is the king of the hill, coming in 1.5x faster than the next fastest TB3 product, nearly doubling the USB 3.1 Gen2 products, and quadrupling the USB 3.1 Gen1 Samsung T5. Writes are also impressive, just slightly less so.
Comparing with a native 970 EVO, a few hundred MB/s are lost along the way. Still not bad at all for an external storage device.
Random
Random performance is indeed impressive, especially random reads, which some within a few percent of a natively-connected 970 EVO.
Mixed Burst
Read throughput is the pain point for this particular test, as the write rate is throttled to 20 MB/s. The X5 does great here, showing that it is even fast enough to run applications, VM's, and other heavier loads directly off of the external SSD with performance similar to an internally mounted device. Read service times paint the rest of this picture:
Overall an impressive showing from the Samsung X5.
Caching
This cache test is meant for desktop use, but we hit the X5 with it in order to help evaluate possible thermal throttling during heavier duty cycles. The test issues 60 second bursts of continuous writes. Idle times are progressively shortened (+600s, +300s, +60s, etc) during the first 6 passes, then increased for the last two passes in order to evaluate proper cache recovery.
The X5 did well in this test. When sufficient idle time was present, available cache remained at 40GB (the test runs at half-filled capacity, and Samsung's caching routine allows for dynamically greater available cache so long as the SSD is not completely filled). During the heavier cycles with shorter idle periods, speeds remained between 1.0 and 1.2GB/s. As soon as the X5 was given a bit of breathing room, the cache immediately snapped back to the full available 40GB of 1.7GB/s write throughput.
Potential Issues
A few things to consider before moving on. First:
Above is what happens when connecting the Portable SSD X5 into a standard (non-Thunderbolt) USB 3 port. Part of the advantage of having a portable SSD is the ability to use it to move data between multiple systems. While the SSD T1/T3/T5 were able to fall back to USB 2.0 and even 1.1 if needed for compatibility, the X5 is bound by the limitations of current Thunderbolt 3 controller hardware, which is unable to fall back to the USB protocol. This may change in the future, as more advanced controllers are released (hopefully with the ability to translate from USB UASP to NVMe), but we're just not there yet.
Thermal Throttling
The X5 has what is basically a hunk of aluminum acting as a thermal buffer. Short bursts of heavy activity are easily absorbed and prevent thermal throttling, but sustained continuous usage at the maximum throughputs possible will eventually slow things down a bit. In addition to the caching test above, I was able to write continuous and at maximum speed for greater than 5 minutes straight before any throttling was noted. Due to the insulative nature of the solid (not vented) plastic housing, the exact amount of time before throttling varies greatly by previous activity, room temperature, and even the type of surface the X5 is sitting on (wood desks are more thermally insulative than metal ones).









I don’t understand why they
I don’t understand why they make these so big. Look at all that empty board space and empty space in the enclosure.
Did I read it correctly that
Did I read it correctly that it only works with PC’s/Macs that have thunderbolt, as such not compatible with any AMD or Intel systems without THundebolt?
That should be really emphasized/underlined/bolded/etc to show that it has limited compatibility.
Interesting spects, but not useful to many
No-one seems to have a USB to
No-one seems to have a USB to NVMe adaptor out yet, so even with USB 3.1 the best you can do is SATA speeds.
The issue based on what i
The issue based on what i read is that current Thunderbolt interface does not fall back to USB interface (the current hardware, not the protocol design) as such even USB is uesless. You need Thunderbolt 3 to use this device, as such the volume of users is limited, very limited. 🙁
Strangely Intel’s newer TB3
Strangely Intel’s newer TB3 controller does support USB 3.1 Gen 2. So Alpine Ridge does not support USB while the newer Titan Ridge does support USB.
“Intel’s JHL7x40 family of Thunderbolt 3 controllers supports two main features of the TB3 technology, including PCIe 3.0 with 40 Gbps data transfer rate as well as USB 3.1 Gen 2 with 10 Gbps data transfer rate. The big difference is that Titan Ridge adds support for allowing two DisplayPort 1.4 streams to be encapsulated into the TB3 connection, versus two DisplayPort 1.2 streams in case of the previous-gen TB3 controllers. What isn’t changing here is the actual TB3 signaling standard or the cabling, so the total amount bandwidth offered by the previous-gen Alpine Ridge controllers and the new-gen Titan Ridge chips is the same.” (1)
(1)
“Intel Releases “Titan Ridge” Thunderbolt 3 Controllers: Adds DisplayPort 1.4 Support & USB-C Host Compatibility
by Anton Shilov on January 8, 2018 12:00 PM EST”
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12228/intel-titan-ridge-thunderbolt-3
Titan Ridge will support it,
Titan Ridge will support it, but the question is does it also have the additional logic necessary to translate from USB to NVMe…
Probably not much could be
Probably not much could be done for this drive but at least any USB 3.1 Gen 2/Gen 1 Type-C external HD/SSD device would work if the laptop or PC had that Titan Ridge controller and that PC/Laptop would also work with this TB3 only capable drive over its required TB3 connection.
So hopefully there are some laptop OEMs making use of the Titan Ridge IP and that would be the best solution. Hopefully Apple is updating their new MacBook refresh with at least that Titan Ridge TB3 IP. Even USB 3.2(20Gbs) is still not going to be able to support full PCIe x4 connectivity.
There are some USB 3.1 Gen 2 to NVMe enclosure products but that’s only PCIe x2 based and that’s going to be performance constrained anyways. TB3 appears to be the only solution to get at the full PCIe 3.0 x4 bandwidth.
The USB 3.2 standard makes use of a doubled up USB 3.1 gen 2(2, USB 3.1 Gen 2 channels Link Bonded) arrangement over the already existing Type-C cable’s USB 3.1 gen 2 channel and the Type-C Extra alt wiring for the other channel’s USB 3.1 gen 2 signaling, if I’m understanding it correctly. I just wonder if Intel will be doing something like that for any future higher speeds beyond TB3’s 40Gbs data rate.
How soon before TB3 is available for that stated open standard usage and others can begin making TB3 controllers and will AMD/others be able to add that to their chipsets sometime in the future. Thunderbolt Going Royalty-Free was announced in 2017, will it be later than 2018? Could TB3 be useful for GPU outputs also?
That JMS583 adapter (second
That JMS583 adapter (second from the right in the contenders pic) does NVMe to USB 3.1 Gen2 directly, but no TB3.
Awesome, thanks Allyn!
Awesome, thanks Allyn! Serves me right for skipping ahead to the conclusion. 🙂
Got a link or name for that
Got a link or name for that device you mentioned on Podcast #511? The M.2 to USB 3.1/3.2 Type C.
Edit: It appears to be called JMS583.
They say it’s not backwards
They say it’s not backwards compatible, but I think they mean specifically Thunderbolt 3 to USB Type C. I would bet this adapter works for back compat to Thunderbolt 2 (or even 1): https://www.amazon.com/Apple-MMEL2AM-Thunderbolt-USB-C-Adapter/dp/B01MQ26QIY/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1536103475&sr=8-5&keywords=usb+type+c+to+thunderbolt+2