Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

NewMaxx

Member
  • Content Count

    564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Informative
    NewMaxx got a reaction from brenhudd in Is DRAM-less ssds fine? Pros and cons of it?   
    The WD SN550 does quite fine without DRAM, for several reasons. Some above have said HMB but actually the SN500 & SN520 (from which it is derived) do not use HMB.
     
    The SN550 is good without DRAM for the following reasons:
    It has a static-only SLC cache, no dynamic portion. This means it doesn't have to worry about converting to/from TLC/SLC, it doesn't have to force empty/fold (slow) from SLC, and its direct-to-TLC speeds are quite high. It has a relatively powerful controller based on the SN750's tri-core design. The SN750's controller has specialized cores for read, write, host, someone similar to Samsung's NVMe older designs, making it extremely efficient and powerful in cases where the lack of DRAM would hurt - when the drive is fuller, for example. Static SLC also helps in that case. 96L/BiCS4 flash, which is the newest available right now. Not a huge deal but many consumer workloads only hit one die (no interleaving). For this reason the SN550 is actually a bit faster than the SN750 (64L/BiCS3) in consumer use, e.g. game loading. It relies on the NVMe protocol vs. AHCI (SATA drives) which is superior for solid state (flash) devices including being more efficient. This means it can finish tasks faster and more efficiently which reduces the metadata load. Garbage collection (GC), a form of maintenance, often bogs down without DRAM but again, fast controller and static SLC as mentioned above. The controller still has embedded SRAM (perhaps 32MB) of which some can be used for traditional DRAM tasks. Other DRAM-less controllers like the Phison S11 (SATA) also do this but, in combination with the rest of the list, makes the SN550 capable of handling larger workloads, as can be seen even with the older SN500 in AnandTech's review. By far and large the 1TB SN550 is seen as a value champion right now.
  2. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from AnirbanG007 in Is DRAM-less ssds fine? Pros and cons of it?   
    The WD SN550 does quite fine without DRAM, for several reasons. Some above have said HMB but actually the SN500 & SN520 (from which it is derived) do not use HMB.
     
    The SN550 is good without DRAM for the following reasons:
    It has a static-only SLC cache, no dynamic portion. This means it doesn't have to worry about converting to/from TLC/SLC, it doesn't have to force empty/fold (slow) from SLC, and its direct-to-TLC speeds are quite high. It has a relatively powerful controller based on the SN750's tri-core design. The SN750's controller has specialized cores for read, write, host, someone similar to Samsung's NVMe older designs, making it extremely efficient and powerful in cases where the lack of DRAM would hurt - when the drive is fuller, for example. Static SLC also helps in that case. 96L/BiCS4 flash, which is the newest available right now. Not a huge deal but many consumer workloads only hit one die (no interleaving). For this reason the SN550 is actually a bit faster than the SN750 (64L/BiCS3) in consumer use, e.g. game loading. It relies on the NVMe protocol vs. AHCI (SATA drives) which is superior for solid state (flash) devices including being more efficient. This means it can finish tasks faster and more efficiently which reduces the metadata load. Garbage collection (GC), a form of maintenance, often bogs down without DRAM but again, fast controller and static SLC as mentioned above. The controller still has embedded SRAM (perhaps 32MB) of which some can be used for traditional DRAM tasks. Other DRAM-less controllers like the Phison S11 (SATA) also do this but, in combination with the rest of the list, makes the SN550 capable of handling larger workloads, as can be seen even with the older SN500 in AnandTech's review. By far and large the 1TB SN550 is seen as a value champion right now.
  3. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from AnirbanG007 in Why are Nvme SSD's suddenly cheaper/ the same price as SATA? Did I miss something?   
    SSDs have static (e.g. controller) and dynamic (e.g. NAND) costs, with the latter also having elements of scale (i.e. there is a "sweet spot"). A drive, whether at 250GB or 2TB, may have the same controller for example. This is one reason SSD controller costs are expected to go up 10-15% this year even as NAND remains in decline due to oversupply. So, as an example, you have the dual-core ARM Cortex-R5 Marvell 88SS1074 controller in many SATA SSDs (e.g. WD Blue 3D) while the SMI SM2263 NVMe controller is also dual-core Cortex-R5, albeit clocks vary. The point being that controller costs are a small fraction of SSD cost for a e.g. 1TB SSD and the difference between the 88SS1074 and SM2263 is small once that is considered. DRAM if present also tends to scale with capacity (i.e. 1GB of DRAM per 1TB of NAND, although this is increasingly not the case with consumer drives) regardless of SATA or NVMe and further you can have DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3/4, etc, with similar functionality because the cache is intended for low latency mapping access. So the difference in cost there is also small - and of course PCB and component costs are not far different (although some of these are higher from the pandemic as we see with PSU pricing in 2020), with SATA PCBs having been larger but now getting smaller with denser NAND.
     
    That leaves the bulk of the price to flash/NAND especially as capacity scales (since 2TB drives often have 512MB of DRAM now) which is actually very similar on SATA and NVMe drives. You will sometimes have faster I/O or bus speeds for NVMe but this is often not the case, for example the Samsung TLC found on recent ADATA SX8200 Pros is at a lower data rate that matches what you find on SATA SSDs. It's literally the same flash. This means the primary driver of higher NVMe (for M.2, as opposed to M.2 SATA of course - that is, if we disregard costs from lack of space, something solved with the denser 3D flash we have today) costs, it was really about adoption. 2019 was the first year that more pre-built laptops and PCs came with PCIe (NVMe) than SATA SSDs and that ratio increased in 2020. Therefore, that cost difference has melted away, especially as almost every board comes with one or more NVMe-capable M.2 socket and most people still only have one or two drives (e.g. with storage being SATA).
     
    SATA will be cheaper per GB at higher capacities since QLC is most relevant there and still slow enough to not saturate SATA speeds (in QLC mode). It's also possible to hit SATA speeds at lower capacities due to a lesser need of interleaving and likewise a 4-channel controller (or even 2-channel) will be plenty with faster flash, which means NVMe tends towards larger base/minimum capacities especially with 8-channel controllers in Gen4. Which is to say, SATA still has its niche but it's no longer the cheapest way to operate in the most common capacity range.
  4. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from AnirbanG007 in Are Dramless SSDs really that bad (stutter?)   
    Yes. It's not just about DRAM, the AHCI protocol (which SATA SSDs use) is inferior for solid state which is why NVMe was introduced. Further, DRAM-less drives (and again, especially SATA) tend to be marketed towards a budget segment so may have weaker controllers and usually large SLC caching schemes which are less reliable especially when the drive is fuller (which is why AnandTech's review of the Mushkin Source states that you must consider/compare them as being less in capacity). DRAM-less NVMe drives get around the protocol limitations and also use host memory buffer (HMB) to use some system memory for mapping which helps alleviate that issue as well. NVMe controllers are more powerful, too. And some drives, like the SN550, have conservative SLC caches with solid native flash performance, which is why it performs so well in reviews and is incredibly consistent even when fuller.
     
    I have tons of SSDs (just google my name) but I avoid using DRAM-less SATA for anything but storage wherever possible. I only have one old system where it's primary and I can immediately tell when I use it, but some people claim not to notice (although it's more of an issue when fuller). Keep in mind this is disregarding TLC vs. QLC - a QLC DRAM-less drive will be even worse, especially with SATA, like the SU630/SU635, and especially at lower capacities due to higher flash density (fewer dies). To learn more, again, google me, I also have a discord server, etc.
  5. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Fadi Obaji in I need help with Samsung 980 Pro M.2 NVME 1TB   
    Temperature is not too high. Check IOPS in another benchmark like CDM.
  6. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from ZonalThrone in Is WDgreen ssd decent?   
    It's not all that great, strictly an extreme budget option.
  7. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from nagz06 in Is my m.2 NVME too hot?   
    It's normal.
  8. Informative
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Newblesse Obblige in Is the Patriot burst a good alterantive to WD Blue 3D or even a Samsung 860 Evo?   
    No DRAM on the Patriot Burst (Phison S11). It states it has 32MB of SDRAM (which is DRAM, not SRAM) but it's embedded in the controller and AFAIK not utilized for mapping but rather write caching. It's effectively DRAM-less.
  9. Agree
    NewMaxx reacted to Jurrunio in Is the Patriot burst a good alterantive to WD Blue 3D or even a Samsung 860 Evo?   
    As far as I know it doesnt.
  10. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from HenrikTJ in V-nand vs 3D nand... Is there a difference?   
    V-NAND is Samsung's implementation of 3D flash. It's architecturally built on TCAT which is a form of replacement gate (RG). Nobody else uses that, but Micron's new 176-layer flash will be RG. Other manufacturers use variations of BiCS (bit cost scaling), like WD/Kioxia and Hynix, which scales well with capacity and yields; this is charge trap flash (CTF). Intel/Micron use floating gate (FG) instead which takes up more area but is more resilient in general. This makes Intel's QLC the best around. However, again, Micron is moving to CTF. Samsung's flash for the record does tend to have the best endurance, performance is a different discussion as that is deeper in the architecture. Upcoming split-gate/cell flash will be FG and CTF, the former more likely as it works better with the cell shape.
     
    There are dozens of 3D NAND implementations so V-NAND does not equal 3D NAND, it's just Samsung marketing as usual (like "3-bit MLC").
  11. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from FearTec in PCIE 4 SSD drive slowing down   
    SLC cache. The E16 drives (MP600) have full-drive SLC caching which means the entire drive of TLC is capable of SLC mode. SLC mode takes up three times the capacity of TLC. Therefore, the SLC eventually has to be emptied and converted to TLC via folding which is a much slower state. You can see that here for example. Note that this is one reason I caution people against saying the E16 drives are faster than the 970 EVO Plus. In any case, the drive should naturally empty the SLC in the background when idle and return to its faster state, although I've known drives with large SLC caches to get wonky sometimes enough to require a secure erase. Keep in mind that as such drives get fuller they're more likely to exhibit this behavior as the cache is smaller and there's fewer blocks with which to work.
  12. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Juular in SSD TIER LIST   
    Just typical Chinese stuff. Seen it in a million drives, including many retail drives like the L5 Lite 3D. SM2258XT + surplus NAND for the CL100, S11 + BiCS on the CX400. I don't bother to list many of these since they're all the same crap. Usually the quality of the flash suffers.
  13. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Mateyyy in SSD TIER LIST   
    OEM 970 EVO and an OEM DRAM-less BGA option.
  14. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Juular in SSD TIER LIST   
    OEM 970 EVO and an OEM DRAM-less BGA option.
  15. Agree
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Senzelian in Are Dramless SSDs really that bad (stutter?)   
    Yes. It's not just about DRAM, the AHCI protocol (which SATA SSDs use) is inferior for solid state which is why NVMe was introduced. Further, DRAM-less drives (and again, especially SATA) tend to be marketed towards a budget segment so may have weaker controllers and usually large SLC caching schemes which are less reliable especially when the drive is fuller (which is why AnandTech's review of the Mushkin Source states that you must consider/compare them as being less in capacity). DRAM-less NVMe drives get around the protocol limitations and also use host memory buffer (HMB) to use some system memory for mapping which helps alleviate that issue as well. NVMe controllers are more powerful, too. And some drives, like the SN550, have conservative SLC caches with solid native flash performance, which is why it performs so well in reviews and is incredibly consistent even when fuller.
     
    I have tons of SSDs (just google my name) but I avoid using DRAM-less SATA for anything but storage wherever possible. I only have one old system where it's primary and I can immediately tell when I use it, but some people claim not to notice (although it's more of an issue when fuller). Keep in mind this is disregarding TLC vs. QLC - a QLC DRAM-less drive will be even worse, especially with SATA, like the SU630/SU635, and especially at lower capacities due to higher flash density (fewer dies). To learn more, again, google me, I also have a discord server, etc.
  16. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from AmyTheBun in Are Dramless SSDs really that bad (stutter?)   
    SATA ones are definitely inferior. NVMe is a different story, the SN550 is actually a very good drive. And yes I own the SN550, two SN750s, and several DRAM-less SATA drives.
  17. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from EspinalAndres in Slow m.2 NVME Xpg Sx8200 Pro or normal speeds?   
    Also be aware that everything over the chipset shares x4 PCIe 3.0 bandwidth I believe, so 3.5 GB/s is total for all devices. Not that it would necessarily impact a benchmark...just in general, sequentials aren't that important.
  18. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from EspinalAndres in Slow m.2 NVME Xpg Sx8200 Pro or normal speeds?   
    You can change how CDM tests in its options somewhere, if not you can use an older version of the software that uses QD32. Alternatively there are other benchmarks that let you pick whatever you want depending on your skill level.
     
    QD8 = queue depth or I/O depth of 8. More queue depth allows the controller to more optimally organize the I/O to maximize parallelism (interleaving) of the flash.
     
    You tested the drive at 29% usage. Once a SSD has been formatted, used, written, etc., its performance will necessarily be lower than factory. This is especially true if it's the OS/primary/boot drive as there may be other processes leeching I/O. Keep in mind this is without regarding SLC caching which is fast but can be inconsistent depending.
  19. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from EspinalAndres in Slow m.2 NVME Xpg Sx8200 Pro or normal speeds?   
    Datasheet is at QD32, not QD8. Higher QD (queue depth) means higher numbers. Notice that at QD1 (AS SSD) the numbers are significantly lower! You can test at higher QD, if the numbers are still a bit low there may be other factors involved. For one, Intel consumer motherboard (Z490) have storage all over the chipset unlike dedicated CPU lanes on AMD boards (e.g. X570) which adds a bit of latency (lower numbers) for example. A fuller drive will perform worse. Etc.
  20. Like
    NewMaxx got a reaction from NesteaZen in Sabrent Rocket vs XPG SX8200 Pro vs 970 Evo Plus   
    The Sabrent Rocket 4.0 is based on the Phison E16, there's about a dozen drives that use that controller with the same flash (96L BiCS4 TLC from Toshiba). The SX8200 Pro uses the SM2262EN, updated version of the SM2262, also used on many drives, usually coming with 64L TLC from Intel/Micron. Lastly, Samsung's 970 EVO Plus has a proprietary controller with 96L TLC.
     
    The flash differences aren't really important although there is some impact at 2TB (for the SX8200 Pro) because it has to use double-density dies, that is 512Gb/four-plane, which does have more overhead. So in terms of flash performance, the 1TB 970 EVO Plus is fastest followed by the Rocket 4.0 and then the SX8200 Pro. The "up to" sequential speeds you see are only over PCIe 4.0 and specifically SLC mode, I'm talking base flash performance. However these are all roughly in the same ballpark.
     
    The E16 is a dual-CPU/quad-core design with a balanced performance profile, the SM2262EN is dual-core optimized for low queue depth, the Phoenix (970 EVO Plus) is penta-core with specialized cores (2xread, 2xwrite, 1xhost). So in terms of power it's 970 EVO Plus > Rocket > SX8200 Pro. However this is ignoring low queue depth performance (which is often most important for consumer usage), efficiency, etc.
     
    Lastly they have three different SLC cache designs. The 970 EVO Plus is hybrid (static + dynamic), the SX8200 Pro large and dynamic, the Rocket 4.0 full-drive dynamic. Static is more consistent while dynamic is more flexible, specifically for bursty sequential workloads. There are downsides to dynamic caching, specifically when outside the SLC, when the drive is fuller, etc.
     
    The combination of these factors means the SX8200 Pro will be fastest for every day usage, the Rocket 4.0 is best for bursty sequentials (which requires other fast drives in the system, usually), and the 970 EVO Plus is best-balanced. If capacity is a priority and the price is as close as you say, the SX8200 Pro will absolutely get the job done in most cases; video rendering is often subsystem-limited (CPU/RAM).
  21. Agree
    NewMaxx reacted to kokosnh in Limiting Speed for NVMe SSD with ASUS Hyper M.2x4 Card?   
    no, that one doesn't needs it.
     
    The HYPER M.2 X16 CARD needs it. 
  22. Agree
    NewMaxx reacted to Dedayog in m.2 flex   
    I'd either loosen that screw a lot, or lose that heatsink completely.
     
    That much flex over that run isn't good IMO.
  23. Informative
    NewMaxx got a reaction from NF-F12 in Sabrent Rocket vs XPG SX8200 Pro vs 970 Evo Plus   
    The Sabrent Rocket 4.0 is based on the Phison E16, there's about a dozen drives that use that controller with the same flash (96L BiCS4 TLC from Toshiba). The SX8200 Pro uses the SM2262EN, updated version of the SM2262, also used on many drives, usually coming with 64L TLC from Intel/Micron. Lastly, Samsung's 970 EVO Plus has a proprietary controller with 96L TLC.
     
    The flash differences aren't really important although there is some impact at 2TB (for the SX8200 Pro) because it has to use double-density dies, that is 512Gb/four-plane, which does have more overhead. So in terms of flash performance, the 1TB 970 EVO Plus is fastest followed by the Rocket 4.0 and then the SX8200 Pro. The "up to" sequential speeds you see are only over PCIe 4.0 and specifically SLC mode, I'm talking base flash performance. However these are all roughly in the same ballpark.
     
    The E16 is a dual-CPU/quad-core design with a balanced performance profile, the SM2262EN is dual-core optimized for low queue depth, the Phoenix (970 EVO Plus) is penta-core with specialized cores (2xread, 2xwrite, 1xhost). So in terms of power it's 970 EVO Plus > Rocket > SX8200 Pro. However this is ignoring low queue depth performance (which is often most important for consumer usage), efficiency, etc.
     
    Lastly they have three different SLC cache designs. The 970 EVO Plus is hybrid (static + dynamic), the SX8200 Pro large and dynamic, the Rocket 4.0 full-drive dynamic. Static is more consistent while dynamic is more flexible, specifically for bursty sequential workloads. There are downsides to dynamic caching, specifically when outside the SLC, when the drive is fuller, etc.
     
    The combination of these factors means the SX8200 Pro will be fastest for every day usage, the Rocket 4.0 is best for bursty sequentials (which requires other fast drives in the system, usually), and the 970 EVO Plus is best-balanced. If capacity is a priority and the price is as close as you say, the SX8200 Pro will absolutely get the job done in most cases; video rendering is often subsystem-limited (CPU/RAM).
  24. Agree
    NewMaxx reacted to Biomecanoid in Raid0 runs worse than stock   
    Consumer motherboards still use the CPU and RAM even if you setup the Raid0 in the Bios. Only server motherboards have special hardware onboard that handle the Raid independently of the CPU and RAM
  25. Agree
    NewMaxx got a reaction from Apple50000 in Ps5 custom ssd whats so special about it?   
    The only thing unique about the SSD itself is that the controller is 12-channel. Therefore if you have 12 two-plane dies of TLC at 512Gb/die you will get ~5000+ MB/s reads (example math here - actual tR would be lower) with 825GB (768GiB) of storage. The drive itself is DRAM-less and relies on SRAM because you don't need a lot of mapping metadata if the data is in large, contiguous chunks, as you have with streaming - that is to say, sequential and compressible data (which also reduces the amount of storage required). The PS5 and Series X both have a hardware accelerator/block for compression, Kraken and BCPack respectively with Zlib fallback. While the PS5 also has a DMA block and co-processors the XBox utilizes DirectStorage instead to use some of the general purpose CPU for management.
×