Previewing Maxiotek's MK8115 SSD Controller: Can DRAM-less Drives Make The Cut?
by Billy Tallis on May 9, 2017 8:00 AM ESTMixed Random Read/Write Performance
The mixed random I/O benchmark starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. The queue depth is 3 for the entire test and each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. As with the pure random write test, this test is restricted to a 16GB span of the drive, which is empty save for the 16GB test file.
The MK8115 struggled with both random reads and random writes, so it's no surprise to see them turn in the lowest performance scores for the mixed random workload test. The MLC drive is only ahead of the TLC drive by a hair, and the next slowest drive is faster by a third.
The MK8115 with TLC ends up using less power to deliver almost exactly the same performance, so the TLC drive scores a minor win for efficiency. They're both still beat by a wide range of mainstream SSDs.
 |
|||||||||
Both MK8115 drives show a normal spike in performance at the end of the test when the workload shifts to pure writes. During the rest of the test, performance is mostly constant instead of the more usual pattern of growing steadily with the proportion of writes in the workload. The TLC drive is substantially faster than the MLC drive in the initial all-reads phase of the test, but it is slightly slower through the middle of the test and that gives it the slower overall average.
Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance
The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.
The MK8115 drive with MLC has much higher average performance on the mixed sequential workload test than its TLC counterpart, which is quite clearly the slowest drive. The MLC manages to outperform two TLC drives, but doesn't come close to matching the next slowest MLC drive on this test.
Both MK8115 drives draw about the same amount of power during the mixed sequential workload test. The MLC drive requires slightly more power but is substantially more efficient due to its higher performance, and it actually beats the Crucial MX300 for efficiency here.
 |
|||||||||
The MLC drive's performance curve across the mixed sequential test is the U shape that is normal for mainstream SSDs, though the minimum performance of around 150MB/s is a bit on the low side. The TLC drive by contrast slows down steadily as more writes are added, and doesn't recover any performance near the end of the test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
jardows2 - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I fondly remember when new developments in SSD products resulted in lower prices AND better performance. Now it seems that every new product is geared only for lower prices, and the performance is getting worse! Not to mention that the prices have gone up substantially in the past year, I don't think we are at the best value time for SSD's.MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
Can you provide evidence of performance getting worse? I haven't seen groundbreaking performance strides in anything but high-end/upper-mid (Samsung 960 series), but I haven't seen a performance regression.Sonic01 - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
i actually found this today, i was looking for a new budget 1tb SSD.my current is a crucial m500 from 2013 i bagged for about £450, now the cheapest 1tb ss'd are about £300 but overall performance is about 30% of the m500..... in 4 years they have dropped 30% of the cost at the expense of 60% of the speed...
MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I looked on amazon.co.uk and the Samsung 850 Evo is 300 for 1TB. I also paged around in Anandtech reviews, and it has better performance than the M500, sometimes significantly so. The MX300 is 250 for 1TB, and it also scores very well on reviews, although I didn't do a very thorough comparison to the M500, it seems a little lower in performance compared to the 850Evo, which should still put it slightly ahead of the M500AlphaBlaster - Sunday, May 14, 2017 - link
That embecil Comey wanted to grab and be in the headlines, and he was manipulating evidence, etc ,and non-evidence, etc.to accomplish that. That's just one thing. He has no integrity. He showed himself to be just another Washington stooge. Hoover was also another Washington stooge and a degenerate, but was fired by the president that committed the crime that he fired Hoover for. If some entity could lob a couple of nukes onto Washington DC when whatever worthless miscreant president at the time is addressing both houses of congress, it would be a blessing!CheapSushi - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link
The big difference is the Crucial M500 is MLC NAND and the Samsung 850 EVO and similar cheaper ones are TLC NAND. TLC is inherently slower than MLC; always. It's 2 bits per cell vs 3 bits per cell. It's an important distinction when comparing SLC, MLC, TLC and soon QLC. Maybe you didn't know?extide - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link
Yeah, but the 850 is also using #d TLC, not planar TLC, and 3D TLC is a lot faster than planar TLC. Maybe you didn't know?extide - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link
#d is supposed to be 3D, of courselowlymarine - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link
If only the very site you were on had some sort of database of benchmarks you could check to see that, in fact, the 850 EVO is massively faster than the M500. Oh hey, look what I found! http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/805?vs=1398MajGenRelativity - Thursday, May 11, 2017 - link
The 850 Evo is faster though, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say