SanDisk Ultra II (240GB) SSD Review
Two years ago Samsung dropped the bomb by releasing the first TLC NAND based SSD. I still vividly remember Anand’s reaction when I told him about the SSD 840. I was in Korea for the launch event and was sitting in a press room where Samsung held the announcement. Samsung had only sampled us and everyone else with the 840 Pro, so the 840 and its guts had remained as a mystery. As soon as Samsung lifted the curtain on the 840 specs, I shot Anand a message telling him that it was TLC NAND based. The reason why I still remember this so clearly is because I had to tell Anand three times that, «Yes, I am absolutely sure and am not kidding» before he took my word.
For nearly two years Samsung was the only manufacturer with an SSD that utilized TLC NAND. Most of the other manufacturers have talked about TLC SSDs in one way or another, but nobody has come up with anything retail worthy… until now. A month ago SanDisk took the stage and unveiled their Ultra II, the company’s first TLC SSD and the first TLC SSD that is not by Samsung. Obviously, there’s a lot to discuss, but let’s start with a quick overview of TLC and the market landscape.
There are a variety of reasons for Samsung’s head start in the TLC game. Samsung is the only client SSD manufacturer with a fully integrated business model: everything inside Samsung SSDs is designed and manufactured by Samsung. That is unique in the industry because even though the likes of SanDisk and Micron/Crucial manufacture NAND and develop their own custom firmware, they rely on Marvell’s controllers for their client drives. Third party silicon always creates some limitations because it is designed based on the needs of several customers, whereas in-house silicon can be designed for a specific application and firmware architecture.
Furthermore, Samsung is the only NAND manufacturer in addition to SK Hynix that is not in a NAND joint-venture. Without a partner Samsung has the full freedom to dedicate as much (or as little) resources and fab space to TLC development and production as necessary, while SanDisk must coordinate with Toshiba to ensure that both companies are satisfied with the development and production strategy.
From what I have heard, the two major problems with TLC have been late production ramp up and low volume. In other words, it has taken two or three additional quarters for TLC NAND to become mature enough for SSDs compared to MLC NAND at the same node, which means that a new MLC node is already sampling and will be available for SSD use within a couple of quarters. It has simply made sense to wait for the smaller and more cost efficent MLC node to become available instead of focusing development resources on a TLC SSD that would become obsolete in a matter of months.
SanDisk and Toshiba seem to have revised their strategy, though, because their second generation 19nm TLC is already SSD-grade and the production of both MLC and TLC flavors of the 15nm node are ramping up as we speak. Maybe TLC is finally becoming a first class citizen in the fab world. Today’s review will help tell us more about the state of TLC NAND outside of Samsung’s world. I am not going to cover the technical aspects of TLC here because we have done that several times before, so take a look at the links in case you need a refresh on how TLC works and how it differs from SLC/MLC.
The Ultra II is available in four capacities: 120GB, 240GB, 480GB and 960GB. The 120GB and 240GB models are shipping already, but the larger 480GB and 960GB models will be available in about a month. All come in a 2.5″ 7mm form factor with a 9.5mm spacer included. There are no mSATA or M.2 models available and from what I was told there are not any in the pipeline either (at least for retail). SanDisk has always been rather conservative with their retail lineup and they have not been interested in the small niches that mSATA and M.2 currently offer, so it is logical decision to stick with 2.5″ for now.
SanDisk Ultra II Specifications | |||||
Capacity | 120GB | 240GB | 480GB | 960GB | |
Controller | Marvell 88SS9190 | Marvell 88SS9189 | |||
NAND | SanDisk 2nd Gen 128Gbit 19nm TLC | ||||
Sequential Read | 550MB/s | 550MB/s | 550MB/s | 550MB/s | |
Sequential Write | 500MB/s | 500MB/s | 500MB/s | 500MB/s | |
4KB Random Read | 81K IOPS | 91K IOPS | 98K IOPS | 99K IOPS | |
4KB Random Write | 80K IOPS | 83K IOPS | 83K IOPS | 83K IOPS | |
Idle Power (Slumber) | 75mW | 75mW | 85mW | 85mW | |
Max Power (Read/Write) | 2. 5W / 3.3W | 2.7W / 4.5W | 2.7W / 4.5W | 2.9W / 4.6W | |
Encryption | N/A | ||||
Warranty | Three years | ||||
Retail Pricing | $80 | $112 | $200 | $500 |
There are two different controller configurations: the 120GB and 240GB models are using the 4-channel 9190 «Renoir Lite» controller, whereas the higher capacity models use the full 8-channel design 9189 «Renoir» silicon. To my knowledge there is not any difference besides the channel count (perhaps in internal cache sizes too), and the «Lite» version is cheaper. SanDisk has done this before with the X300s for instance, so having two different controllers is not really anything new and it makes sense because the smaller capacities cannot take full advantage of all eight channels anyway. Note that the 9189/9190 is not the new TLC-optimized 1074 controller from Marvell – it is the same controller that is used in Crucial’s MX100 for example.
Similar to the rest of SanDisk’s client SSD lineup, the Ultra II does not offer any encryption support. For now SanDisk is only offering encryption in the X300s, but in the future TCG Opal 2.0 and eDrive support will very likely make their way to the client drives as well. DevSleep is not supported either and SanDisk said the reason is that the niche for aftermarket DevSleep-enabled SSDs is practically non-existent. Nearly all platforms that support DevSleep (which is very few, actually) already come with SSDs, e.g. laptops, so DevSleep is not a feature that buyers find valuable.
nCache 2.0
The Ultra II offers rather impressive performance numbers for a TLC drive as even the smallest 120GB model is capable of 550MB/s read and 500MB/s write. The secret behind the performance is the new nCache 2.0, which takes SanDisk’s pseudo-SLC caching mode to a next level. While the original nCache was mainly designed for caching the NAND mapping table along with some small writes (<4KB), the 2. 0 version caches all writes regardless of their size and type by increasing the capacity of the pseudo-SLC portion. nCache 1.0 had an SLC portion less than 1GB (SanDisk never revealed the actual size), but the 2.0 version runs 5GB of the NAND in SLC mode for every 120GB of user space.
nCache 2.0 Overview | ||||
Capacity | 120GB | 240GB | 480GB | 960GB |
SLC Cache Size | 5GB | 10GB | 20GB | 40GB |
The interesting tidbit about SanDisk’s implementation is the fact that each NAND die has a fixed number of blocks that run in SLC mode. The benefit is that when data has to be moved from the SLC to the TLC portion, the transfer can be done internally in the die, which is a feature SanDisk calls On Chip Copy. This is a proprietary design and uses a special die, so you will not see any competitive products using the same architecture. Normally the SLC to TLC transfer would be done like any other wear-leveling operation by using the NAND interface (Toggle or ONFI) and DRAM to move the data around internally from die to die, but the downside is that such a design may interrupt host IO processing since the internal operations occupy the NAND interface and DRAM.
OCZ’s «Performance Mode» is a good example of a competing technology: once the fast buffer is full the write speed drops to half because in addition to the host IOs, the drive now has to move the data from SLC to MLC/TLC, which increases overheard since there is additional load on the controller, NAND interfaces, and in the NAND itself. Performance recovers once the copy/reorganize operations are complete.
SanDisk’s approach introduces minimal overhead because everything is done within the die. Since an SLC block is exactly one third of a TLC block, three SLC blocks are simply folded into one TLC block. Obviously there is still some additional latency if you are trying to access a page in a block that is in the middle of the folding operation, but the impact of that is far smaller than what a die-to-die transfer would cause.
The On Chip Copy has a predefined threshold that will trigger the folding mechanism, although SanDisk said that it is adaptive in the sense that it will also look at the data type and size to determine the best action. Idle time will also trigger On Chip Copy, but there is no set threshold for that either from what I was told.
In our 240GB sample the SLC cache size is 10GB and since sixteen 128Gbit (16GiB) NAND dies are needed for the raw NAND capacity of 256GiB, the cache per die works out to be 625MB. I am guessing that in reality there is 32GiB of TLC NAND running in SLC mode (i.e. 2GiB per die), which would mean 10.67GiB of SLC, but unfortunately SanDisk could not share the exact block sizes of TLC and MLC with us for competitive reasons.
The performance benefits of the SLC mode are obvious. A TLC block requires multiple iterations to be programmed because the distribution of the voltage states is much narrower, so there is less room for errors, which needs a longer and more complex programming process.
I ran HD Tach to see what the performance is across all LBAs. With sequential data the threshold for On Chip Copy seems to be about 8GB because after that the performance drops from 400MB to ~230MB/s. For average client workloads that is more than enough because users do not usually write more than ~10GB per day and with idle time nCache 2.0 will also move data from SLC to TLC to ensure that the SLC cache has enough space for all incoming writes.
The improved performance is not the only benefit of nCache 2.0. Because everything gets written to the SLC portion first, the data can then be written sequentially to TLC. That minimizes write amplification on the TLC part, which in turn increases endurance because there will be less redundant NAND writes. With sequential writes it is typically possible to achieve write amplification of very close to 1x (i.e. the minimum without compression) and in fact SanDisk claims write amplification of about 0.8x for typical client workloads (for the TLC portion, that is). That is because not all data makes it to the TLC in the first place – some data will be deleted while it is still in the SLC cache and thus will not cause any wear on the TLC. Remember, TLC is generally only good for about 500-1,000 P/E cycles, whereas SLC can easily surpass 30,000 cycles even at 19nm, so utilizing the SLC cache as much as possible is crucial for endurance with TLC at such small lithographies.
Like the previous nCache 1.0, the 2.0 version is also used to cache the NAND mapping table to prevent data corruption and loss. SanDisk does not employ any power loss protection circuitry (i.e. capacitors) in client drives, but instead the SLC cache is used to flush the mapping table from the DRAM more often, which is possible due to the higher endurance and lower latency of SLC. That obviously does not provide the same level of protection as capacitors do because all writes in progress will be lost during a power failure, but it ensures that the NAND mapping table will not become corrupt and turn the drive into a brick. SanDisk actually has an extensive whitepaper on power loss protection and the techniques that are used, so those who are interested in the topic should find it a good read.
Multi Page Recovery (M.P.R)
Using parity as a form of error correction has become more and more popular in the industry lately. SandForce made the first move with RAISE several years ago and nearly every manufacturer has released their own implementation since then. However, SanDisk has been one of the few that have not had any proper parity-based error correction in client SSDs, but the Ultra II changes that.
SanDisk’s implementation is called Multi Page Recovery and as the name suggests, it provides page-level redundancy. The idea is exactly the same as with SandForce’s RAISE, Micron’s RAIN, and any other RAID 5-like scheme: parity is created for data that comes in, which can then be used to recover the data in case the ECC engine is not able to do it.
The parity ratio in the Ultra II is 5:1, which means that there is one parity page for every five pages of actual data. But here is the tricky part: with 256GiB of raw NAND and a 5:1 parity ratio, the usable capacity could not be more than 229GB because one sixth of the NAND is dedicated for parity.
The secret is that the NAND dies are not really 128Gbit – they are in fact much larger than that. SanDisk could not give us the exact size due to competitive reasons, but told us that the 128Gbit number should be treated as MLC for it to make sense. Since TLC stores three bits per cell instead of two, it can store 50% more data in the same area, so 128Gbit of MLC would become 192Gbit of TLC. That is in a perfect world where every die is equal and there are no bad blocks; in reality TLC provides about a 30-40% density increase over MLC because TLC inherently has more bad blocks (e.g. stricter voltage requirements because there is less room for errors due to narrower distribution of the voltage states).
In this example, let’s assume that TLC provides a 35% increase over TLC when the bad blocks are taken away. That turns our 128Gbit MLC die into a 173Gbit TLC die. Now, with nCache 2.0, every die has about 5Gbit of SLC, which eats away ~15Gbit of TLC and we end up with a die that has 158Gbit of usable capacity. Factor in the 5:1 parity ratio and the final user capacity is ~132Gbit per die. Sixteen of those would equal 264GiB of raw NAND, which is pretty close to the 256GiB we started with.
Note that the above is just an example to help you understand how 5:1 parity ratio is possible. Like I said, SanDisk would not disclose the actual numbers and in the real world the raw NAND capacity may vary a bit because the number of bad blocks will vary from die to die. What matters, though, is that the Ultra II has the same 12.7% over-provisioning as the Extreme Pro, and that is after nCache 2.0 and Multi Page Recovery have been taken into account (i.e. 12.7% is dedicated to garbage collection, wear-leveling and the usual NAND management schemes).
Furthermore, all NAND die have what are called spare bytes, which are additional bytes meant for ECC. For instance Micron’s 20nm MLC NAND has an actual page size of 17,600 bytes (16,384 user space + 1,216 spare bytes), so in reality a 128Gbit die is never truly 128Gbit – there is always a bit more for ECC and bad block management. The number of spare bytes has grown as the industry has moved to smaller process nodes because the need for ECC has increases and so has the number of bad blocks. TLC is just one level worse because it is less reliable by its design, hence more spare bytes are needed to make it usable in SSDs.
Testing Endurance
SanDisk does not provide any specific endurance rating for the Ultra II, which is similar to what Samsung is doing with the SSD 840 EVO. The reason is that both are only validated for client usage, meaning that if you were to employ either of them in an enterprise environment, the warranty would be void anyway. I can see the reasoning behind not including a strict endurance rating for an entry-level client drive because consumers are not very good at understanding their endurance needs and having a rating (which would obviously be lower for a TLC drive) would just lead to confusion. However, the fact that SanDisk has not set any rating does not mean that I am not going to test endurance.
To do it, I turned to our standard endurance testing methodology. Basically, I wrote sequential 128KB data (QD1) to the drive and monitored the SMART values 230 and 241, i.e. Media Wear Out Indicator (MWI) and Total GB Written. In the case of the Ultra II, the MWI works opposite of what we are used to: it starts from 0% and increases as the drive wears out. When the MWI reaches 100%, the drive has come to the end of its rated lifespan – it will likely continue to work because client SSD endurance ratings are with one-year data retention, but I would not recommend using it for any crititical data after that point.
SanDisk Ultra II Endurance Test | |
Change in Media Wear Out Indicator | 7.8% |
Change in Total GB Written | 9,232GiB |
Observed Total Endurance | 118,359GiB |
Observed P/E Cycles | ~530 |
The table above summarizes the results of my test. The duration of the test was 12 hours and I took a few data points during the run to ensure that the results are valid. From the data, I extrapolated the total endurance and used it as the basis to calculate the P/E cycles with the following formula:
I made the assumption that the combined Wear Leveling and Write Amplification factor is 1x because that is plausible with pure sequential writes and it makes the calculation much simpler. For capacity I used the user capacity (240GB i.e. 223.5GiB), so the observed P/E cycles is simply total endurance divided by the capacity (both in GiB).
The number I came up with is 530 P/E cycles. There are a number of factors factors that make it practically impossible to figure out the exact NAND endurance because a part of the NAND operates in SLC mode with far greater endurance and there is a hefty amount of spare bytes for parity, but I think it is safe to say that the TLC NAND portion is rated at around 500 P/E cycles.
SanDisk Ultra II Estimated Endurance | ||||
Capacity | 120GB | 240GB | 480GB | 960GB |
Total Estimated Endurance | 54.6TiB | 109.1TiB | 218.3TiB | 436.6TiB |
Writes per Day | 20GiB | |||
Write Amplification | 1.2x | |||
Total Estimated Lifespan | 6.4 years | 12.8 years | 25.5 years | 51.0 years |
Because the P/E cycle count alone is easy to misunderstand, I put it into context that is easier to understand i.e. lifespan of the drive. All I did was multiply the user capacity by the P/E cycle count to get the total endurance, which I then used to calculate the estimated lifespan. I selected 20GiB of writes per day because even though SanDisk did not provide an endurance rating for the Ultra II, their internal design goal was 20GiB per day, which is a fairly common standard for client drives. I set the write amplification to 1.2x as the TLC blocks are written sequentially thanks to nCache 2.0, and that should result in write amplification that is very close to 1x.
500 P/E cycles certainly does not sound much, but when you put it into context it is more than enough. At 20GiB a day, even the 120GB Ultra II will easily outlive the rest of the components. nCache 2.0 plays a huge role in making the Ultra II as durable as it is because it keeps the write amplification close to the ideal 1x. Without nCache 2.0, 500 P/E cycles would be a major problem, but as it stands I do not see endurance being an issue. Of course, if you write more than 20GiB per day and your workload is IO intensive in general, it is better to look for drives that are meant for heavier usage, such as the Extreme Pro and SSD 850 Pro.
A look at SanDisk’s Updated SSD Dashboard
Along with the Ultra II, SanDisk is bringing an updated version of its SSD Dashboard, labeled as 1.1.1.
The start view has not changed and provides the same overview of the drive as before.
The most important new features are under the «Tools» tab and are provided by third parties. In the past SanDisk has not offered any cloning software with their drives, but the new version brings the option to use Apricorn’s EZ GIG IV software to migrate from an old drive. Clicking the link in the Dashboard will lead to Apricorn’s website where the user can download the software. Note that the Dashboard includes a special version of EZ GIG IV that can only be used to clone a drive once.
In addition to EZ GIG IV, the 1.1.1 version adds Trend Micro’s Titanium Antivirus+ software. While most people are already running antivirus software of some sort, there are (too) many people who do not necessarily have an up-to-date antivirus software that has the definitions for the latest malware, so the idea behind including the antivirus software is to ensure that all users have a free and easy way to check their system for malware before migrating to a new drive.
The new version also adds support for «sanitation». It is basically an enhanced version of secure erase and works the same way as 0-fill erase does: instead of just erasing the data, sanitation writes zeros to all LBAs to guarantee that there is absolutely no way to recover the old data. Crypto erase is now a part of the Dashboard too, although currently that is only supported by the X300s since it is the only drive with hardware encryption support.
Live performance monitoring is also supported, but unfortunately there is no option to run a benchmark within the software (i.e. it just monitors the drive similar to what Windows Performance Monitor does). For OSes without TRIM, the Dashboard includes an option to run a scheduled TRIM to ensure maximum performance. If TRIM is support and enabled (like in this case since I was running Windows 8.1), the TRIM tab is grayed out since the OS will take care of sending the TRIM commands when necessary.
Support has also been improved in the new version as options for live chat and email support have been added. New languages have been added, too, and the Dashboard is now available in 17 different languages. During the install process, the installer will ask for the preferred language, but it is also possible to change that afterwards under the Settings tab.
Test Systems
For AnandTech Storage Benches, performance consistency, random and sequential performance, performance vs transfer size and load power consumption we use the following system:
CPU | Intel Core i5-2500K running at 3.3GHz (Turbo & EIST enabled) |
Motherboard | AsRock Z68 Pro3 |
Chipset | Intel Z68 |
Chipset Drivers | Intel 9. 1.1.1015 + Intel RST 10.2 |
Memory | G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1600 4 x 8GB (9-9-9-24) |
Video Card | Palit GeForce GTX 770 JetStream 2GB GDDR5 (1150MHz core clock; 3505MHz GDDR5 effective) |
Video Drivers | NVIDIA GeForce 332.21 WHQL |
Desktop Resolution | 1920 x 1080 |
OS | Windows 7 x64 |
Thanks to G.Skill for the RipjawsX 32GB DDR3 DRAM kit
For slumber power testing we used a different system:
CPU | Intel Core i7-4770K running at 3. 3GHz (Turbo & EIST enabled, C-states disabled) |
Motherboard | ASUS Z87 Deluxe (BIOS 1707) |
Chipset | Intel Z87 |
Chipset Drivers | Intel 9.4.0.1026 + Intel RST 12.9 |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2x8GB (9-10-9-27 2T) |
Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 4600 |
Graphics Drivers | 15.33.8.64.3345 |
Desktop Resolution | 1920 x 1080 |
OS | Windows 7 x64 |
- Thanks to Intel for the Core i7-4770K CPU
- Thanks to ASUS for the Z87 Deluxe motherboard
- Thanks to Corsair for the Vengeance 16GB DDR3-1866 DRAM kit, RM750 power supply, Hydro H60 CPU cooler and Carbide 330R case
Performance Consistency & TRIM Validation
The Introduction, The Drive & The TestPerformance Consistency & TRIM ValidationAnandTech Storage Bench 2013AnandTech Storage Bench 2011Random & Sequential PerformancePerformance vs. Transfer SizePower ConsumptionFinal Words
Tweet
SanDiskUltra II SSD review: A new level of SSD affordability
The SanDisk Ultra II SSD delivers the goods as a budget solid-state drive (SSD).
The new internal storage device is available in 120GB, 240GB, 480GB, and 960GB capacities that cost just $80, $108, $219 and $495, respectively. This is proving to be, for the most part, a new low in SSD pricing.
While the Ultra II isn’t the fastest SSD I’ve seen, nor does it have the longest warranty, the drive has enough performance and features to be an excellent deal for those looking to upgrade an aging computer that’s still running on a regular hard drive.
If you have a computer that already runs on an SSD and you want to upgrade to an even faster drive, check out this list of top SSDs on the market for alternatives.
The SanDisk Ultra II is a new budget standard SSD from SanDisk. Dong Ngo/CNET
A SanDisk drive first: TLC NAND flash memory
The Ultra II is a standard 2. 5-inch 7mm-thick internal drive, looking very similar to the Ultra Plus or even the new Extreme Pro that came out a few months ago.
On the inside, however, it’s very different from its older brothers, being the first drive from SanDisk that uses the company’s second-generation 19nm Triple Level Cell (TLC) flash memory. Prior to this, TLC NAND flash memory was mostly used in Samsung’s drives, such as the Samsung 840 .
In a nutshell, TLC flash memory allows the memory cells to stack up vertically, which in turn packs more storage into the same space. This means the SSD is now cheaper to make but has slower performance and shorter endurance — the total amount of data that can be written to the drive before it become unreliable — than other types of memory, including Multiple Level Cell (MLC) and Single Level Cell (SLC).
SanDisk, however, says that its firmware, combined with the Marvell 88SS9187 controller, will still make the Ultra II perform well and provide high endurance. However, unlike the case of the Extreme Pro, SanDisk doesn’t provide a specific endurance rating for the Ultra II. But the included three-year warranty generally means that you won’t have any problem with it within at least the first three years.
SanDisk Ultra II SSD specs
120GB | 240GB | 480GB | 960GB | |
Interface | SATA 6Gbps | SATA 6Gbps | SATA 6Gbps | SATA 6Gbps |
Controller | Marvell 88SS9187 | Marvell 88SS9187 | Marvell 88SS9187 | Marvell 88SS9187 |
NAND flash memory | SanDisk 2nd Gen 19nm TLC | SanDisk 2nd Gen 19nm TLC | SanDisk 2nd Gen 19nm TLC | SanDisk 2nd Gen 19nm TLC |
Sequential read | 550 MB/s | 550 MB/s | 550 MB/s | 550 MB/s |
Sequential write | 500 MB/s | 500 MB/s | 500 MB/s | 500 MB/s |
Random read | 81K IOPS | 91K IOPS | 98K IOPS | 99K IOPS |
Random write | 80K IOPS | 83K IOPS | 83K IOPS | 83K IOPS |
Warranty | 3 years | 3 years | 3 years | 3 years |
nCache 2.
0 technology
The Ultra II is equipped with SanDisk’s nCache 2.0 tech, a new caching architecture that converts a portion of the drive’s TLC flash memory to SLC mode, thus offering better performance and reliability. This means the drive can deliver much faster peak performance than it would normally without nCache. SanDisk says nCache 2.0 will also help deliver consistent performance with low energy consumption.
The drive also includes SanDisk Dashboard software that allows users to monitor and manage the drive’s features, as well as contacting the company’s customer support via Live Chat. On top of that, the software also provides links to download Apricorn’s EZ GIG IV for drive cloning, and Trend Micro Titanium Antivirus+ to protect the system from malware, both for free.
The SanDisk Dashboard software is a handy utility. Screenshot by Dong Ngo/CNET
New low in SSD pricing
For a long time, SSDs were priced at around $1 per gigabyte, but in recent months, the price has dropped to around half of that. Now with the Ultra II, for the first time you can get a 960GB SSD in the US for just $380, or 40 cents per gigabyte. Other than the 120GB capacity that costs $80 ($0.67 per gigabyte), the rest of the Ultra II’s capacities are currently the most affordable on the market.
In most cases, it’s in fact cheaper than the ARC 100 series from OCZ , which used to be the cheapest on the market. With the Ultra II, SSD pricing has gotten to a new low, which is always a great news for consumers.
SSD US street price
WD Black 2 Dual Drive $0.18SanDisk Ultra II (960GB) $0.40SanDisk Ultra II (480GB) $0.42SanDisk Ultra II (240GB) $0.45OCZ ARC 100 (240GB) $0.50Samsung SSD 840 Evo (256GB) $0.51Plextor M6S (256GB) $0.53OCZ Vector 150 (480GB) $0.58Samsung SSD 840 Pro (256GB) $0.64SanDisk Ultra II (120GB) $0.67Intel SSD 730 (240GB) $0.70SanDisk Extreme II (240GB) $0.73SanDisk Extreme Pro (240GB) $0.75Samsung SSD 850 Pro (256GB) $0.78
Note: Measured in cost per gigabyte, based on current prices at online retailers. A lower number indicates better value.
Performance
Considering its low cost, the Ultra II’s performance was quite impressive. I tested the drive both as a secondary drive in a computer as well as the main drive that hosted the operating system.
As a secondary drive, it registered a sustained real-world data transferring speed of 310MBps for writing and 310MBps for reading. When used as a main drive and performing both writing and reading at the same time, it, however, scored just 127MBps. Overall, it was below average when compared to recently reviewed drives, but most of these are high-end drives, however.
CNET Labs’ SSD data transfer scores
Samsung 850 Pro 246.25 454.32 448.11SanDisk Extreme Pro 250.98 450.59 457.46OCZ ARC 100 series 163.53 289.39 385.71Plextor M5 Pro Xtreme 236.18 269.78 270.8Intel SSD 730 Series 189.52 265.53 266.84OCZ Vector 150 231.42 265.32 200.46Seagate 600 SSD 192.26 259.01 275.21SanDisk Extreme II 224.27 255. 86 203.42Transcend SSD720 145.26 230.58 269.55SanDisk Ultra II 126.49 210.21 319.23Plextor M6S 155.34 144.78 227.89WD Black 2 Dual Drive 174.65 114.66 228.2
- As OS drive (read and write)
- As secondary drive (write only)
- As secondary drive (read only)
Note: Measured in megabytes per second.
In tests using the PCMark benchmark suite, the drive also did as expected. It has slightly higher storage bandwidth than that of the OCZ ARC 100.
PCMark 8 SSD storage score
Samsung 850 Pro (RAPID 5005 368.13Samsung 850 Pro 4979 267.32SanDisk Extreme Pro 4957 244.17Plextor M5 Pro Xtreme 4948 236.18SanDisk Ultra II 4922 208.55OCZ ARC 100 series 4948 203.72
- Storage score
- Storage bandwidth (MB/s)
Note: Higher number means better performance.
And finally, in application testing, the Ultra II offered much improvement when compared with a conventional hard drive. Compared with other high-end SSDs, it was slightly slower, though not by much.
PCMark 8 application performance
Samsung 850 Pro (RAPID) 58 133.9 355.7 28.2 9.1 9.1Samsung 850 Pro 58.1 133.8 369.8 28.3 9.1 9.2SanDisk Extreme Pro 58.4 133.9 361.1 28.3 9.2 9.2SanDisk Ultra II 58.8 134.6 363.1 28.4 9.3 9.3OCZ ARC 100 series 58.9 134.7 362.3 28.4 9.4 9.3Standard laptop HDD 138.9 366 565.19 51.7 26.6 27.4
- World of Warcraft
- Battlefield 3
- Adobe Photoshop
- Microsoft Word
- Microsoft Excel
- Microsoft PowerPoint
Note: Measured in seconds. Shorter bars means better performance.
Note that you need to use the Ultra II in a computer that supports SATA 3 (6Gbps) to get the best performance out of it. However, considering its low cost, the drive will still make a great upgrade for an older computer that supports SATA 2 (3Gbps).
Conclusion
Pricing has always been one the most important factors in buying an SSD, and SanDisk delivers in this regard with the Ultra II. It’s the first on the market that a cost as low as just 40 cents per gigabyte.
The new drive is also SanDisk’s first step in the TLC SSD market, which has been dominated by Samsung. This opens up the competition and means that, going forward, the price of SSDs will be likely to go down even further.
While the Ultra II isn’t the fastest on the market, it has enough power to make a significant improvement to any computer that currently runs on a regular hard drive. For this reason, instead of spending a few hundred dollars for a new budget computer, upgrading your aging one with a 240GB Ultra II SSD for $108 will be a much better investment that, for the most part, will return the type of performance you need.
SanDisk Ultra II 240GB Review
Verdict
Pros
- Consistently decent performance
- First non-Samsung consumer TLC SSD
- 9. 5mm blanker included
Cons
- Samsung 850 Evo is only £10 more
- No endurance rating provided
Key Specifications
- Review Price: £100.00
- 240GB capacity (223GB formatted)
- 7mm form factor
- SATA 3 interface
- 3yr RTB warranty
What is the SanDisk Ultra II 240GB?
The latest drive from storage specialists SanDisk is a mid-range product that really shows how far SSDs have come – it’s not long ago that a 240GB drive costing £100 would have raised plenty of eyebrows.
The Ultra II’s £100 price means it costs just under 42p per gigabyte. That puts it in an interesting position: cheaper than the Samsung 850 Evo, which arrives at 44p per gigabyte, but not as affordable as the 30p-per-gigabyte Crucial MX100.
SEE ALSO: Best SSDs Round-up
SanDisk Ultra II 240GB – Design
The mid-range price hasn’t prevented SanDisk from trying something new with the Ultra II. This is the first SanDisk SSD to deploy TLC NAND, and the first time it’s been used inside a consumer drive that doesn’t bear the Samsung brand. That’s a big move, and it’s taken some time – Samsung first debuted TLC drives way back in 2012.
The choice of TLC memory comes with pros and cons. The cells used to form this drive’s memory can hold three bits of data each, which increases density – so the same amount of silicon has more space for storage. That helps bring the cost down, but it also hampers performance, as electricity has more distance to travel inside each of those cells.
Elsewhere the Ultra II is more conventional. The memory used is built on a 19nm manufacturing process and using horizontal layers, rather than the 40nm vertical layers chosen by Samsung for its 3D V-NAND system.
SanDisk uses two Marvell controllers inside Ultra II drives. The smaller 120GB and 240GB models use 88SS9190 hardware, while the 480GB and 960GB versions deploy 88SS9189 hardware. The former is a four-channel controller, while the latter is an eight-channel chip – a choice that SanDisk has likely made due to the higher demands of its larger drives. The latter is also the same controller used by Crucial in its MX100.
SanDisk’s drive comes with a feature called nCache, which uses 10GB of the 240GB drive’s space in an SLC-style caching mode. It’s a neat feature that will improve response times when dealing with frequently-accessed files. It’s reminiscent of Samsung’s Rapid Mode, but SanDisk hasn’t found room in this drive for any encryption.
We usually talk about endurance ratings when discussing an SSD’s specification, but SanDisk doesn’t publish these for the Ultra II. That shouldn’t be a problem for most home or gaming PCs, which don’t put huge demands on SSDs when it comes to writing data, but those after a drive for intensive work should look elsewhere.
SanDisk Ultra II 240GB – Performance
TLC memory isn’t the
fastest, and the Ultra II’s lack of raw pace was exposed in our AS SSD
benchmarks. In the sequential read test the Ultra II managed 505MBps – a
mid-range result that’s not as good as the MX100’s 519MBps pace. The
SanDisk beat the MX100 with a file write speed of 473MBps, but that
result wasn’t enough to lift it beyond mid-table – and it wasn’t enough
to beat the Samsung 850 Evo, either.
The situation wasn’t much
better when handling smaller files. The SanDisk’s 4K read and write
speeds of 30MBps and 72MBps both fell behind the MX100, and in the 4K-64
benchmark it trade blows with its cheaper rival – faster when reading,
but slower when writing. None of these scores could match Samsung’s Evo,
which remained convincingly ahead throughout these tests.
The
Ultra II hit its stride in our Atto benchmarks, which evaluate
performance across a wide range of file sizes. In the 8K test the
SanDisk returned read and write speeds of 407MBps and 391MBps, with both
scores miles ahead of anything the Crucial could manage. That lead was
maintained across the rest of our tests, too: when reading files the
SanDisk’s peak of 558MBps snuck ahead of the MX100’s top score of
552MBps, but when writing the Ultra’s top pace of 507MBps was much
better than the Crucial’s 346MBps result.
The SanDisk’s read peak
was better than the Samsung Evo, too, although the Samsung fought back
with a top write result of 530MBps.
The good form didn’t continue
in the IOMeter tests. In the all-in-one benchmark the Ultra II’s result
of 1843 I/Os proved sluggish – around 600 points behind the Crucial,
and several times slower than top SSDs from Samsung. The SanDisk’s raw
speed of 70MBps was similarly poor – slower than both drives – and its
average response time lagged behind, too.
Samsung’s Evo, meanwhile, beat both drives: its top all-in-one score was 5,270 I/Os, and it topped out at 202MB/s.
Other things to consider
The
Ultra II includes a three-year warranty, which is about what we now
expect from affordable SSDs – that deal matches what’s on offer from the
MX100. That said, it’s two years short of the Samsung 850 Evo’s
coverage.
We no longer expect plenty of accessories inside SSD
boxes, but that hasn’t stopped SanDisk including a 9.5mm spacer with the
Ultra II. It’s a handy bit of kit that enables this 7mm drive to fit
into spaces designed for 9.5mm hardware, which means it could be easier
to fit the Ultra II inside older PCs and laptops without the SSD
rattling around.
Three other capacities of Ultra II are
available. The 120GB is the cheapest at just £55, but that’s
46p per gigabyte – a little higher than the
240GB version we’ve reviewed. The 480GB version costs £155 or
32p per gigabyte, and the mammoth 960GB model is £342, which works out
at 36p per gigabyte.
Should I Buy the SanDisk Ultra II 240GB?
The
240GB option costs a reasonable £100, which makes it one of the cheaper
SSDs we’ve seen recently. The modest price and TLC architecture means
mid-table performance, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing – in AS
SSD the Ultra II traded blows with the Crucial MX100, and the SanDisk
secured a convincing victory over its rival in the comprehensive Atto
suite.
The Ultra II faltered in IOMeter, where the MX100 proved a
tad faster, but neither of these affordable SSDs could match top-end
drives for pace – in the greater scheme of things, the Ultra II didn’t
lose much ground.
The reasonable AS SSD pace and solid Atto
performance mean we’d rather buy the SanDisk than the Crucial drive –
it’s more expensive, but it’s faster and a little more consistent.
There’s a sting in the tale, though, and it’s Samsung’s 850 Evo – it’s
only ten pounds more expensive, but it’s faster and has a better
warranty. Unless budget is important, we’d opt for the Evo.
SEE ALSO: Best Laptops Round-up
Verdict
The
Ultra II is faster than the Crucial MX100 in several key benchmarks,
and we’d be happy paying the extra cash for it. There’s a sting in the tale, though, from
Samsung’s 850 Evo, which is faster and only £10 more expensive.
The Ultra II is a good effort, but it’s not quite good enough.
SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD review: Fast and inexpensive
Review
A solid state drive meant specifically to replace aging hard drives.
By Lucas Mearian
Senior Reporter,
Computerworld |
When SanDisk announced the arrival of its Ultra Plus solid-state drive (SSD) at CES two weeks ago, the company made no bones about whom it was targeting: the consumer retrofit market. In other words, this SSD was made specifically to replace that old hard drive in your laptop or desktop.
SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD
Right off the bat I liked two things about this drive: It’s extremely light (it only weighs 1.37 oz.) and it’s cheap — as in very inexpensive. The Ultra Plus comes in 64GB, 128GB and 256GB capacities. On SanDisk’s site, they sell for $75, $110 and $210, respectively. The 256GB Ultra Plus — which is the one I tested for this review — was selling for $170 on Thursday on Amazon, although the price as of today is $216.
As I’ve said in past reviews, there is no single upgrade that will give you a bigger bang for the buck than an SSD, and it’s all the better when it’s an inexpensive one.
The Ultra Plus is a 2.5-in drive that uses multi-level cell (MLC) NAND flash and a SATA 3.0, 6Gbps drive interface. If you don’t have the very latest laptop or desktop model, you are likely still using a SATA 2.0, 3Gbps drive interface, so the SSD won’t perform quite as well for some applications. (The Apple MacBook Pro I tested the drive on has the latest SATA drive dock; more information about my test machine is in the next section. )
When SanDisk announced the Ultra Plus, the company also announced an upgrade to its NAND flash density: it went from 24-nanometer (nm) lithography to 19nm with the drive, which may account for the low price. The smaller the technology used for the semiconductor, the fewer chips are needed to build a drive.
The Ultra Plus sips power, using just 0.12 watts when active.
Performance testing
SanDisk’s specification sheet (PDF) states that the Ultra Plus has sequential read speeds of up to 530MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 445MB/s. Top random read speed clocks in at up to 82,000 I/Os per second (IOPS) and random write speed maxes out at 39,000 IOPS. As always, those speeds vary greatly depending on the system and apps that are being used.
For the benchmark tests, I used an Apple MacBook Pro running OS X Mountain Lion, with 4GB of RAM and a 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 processor. To measure data read/write performance, I used Blackmagic Disk Speed Test benchmark software.
The Ultra Plus SSD displayed blazing fast read/write performance — among the fastest speeds I’ve seen on a consumer SSD. For reads, the SSD clocked in with 433MB/s; for writes, the drive reached 339MB/s., not as fast as SanDisk’s spec sheet promised but still very impressive.
With the Ultra Plus installed, my MacBook Pro booted in just 14 seconds, which isn’t bad. (Interestingly, the time it took to shut down was a bit surprising. While, in my experience, SSDs typically shut down in under 10 seconds, my laptop took a whopping 24 seconds to shut down with the Ultra Plus installed. )
SSD and HDD performance test results
SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD | Intel 520 Series SSD | Western Digital WD Black HDD | |
---|---|---|---|
Capacity | 256GB | 240GB | 500GB |
Retail price (approx.) | $210 | $245 | $64 |
Boot time | 14 sec. | 9 sec. | 21 sec. |
Max. read speed (4K blocks) | 433MB/sec. | 456MB/sec. | 122MB/sec. |
Max. write speed | 339MB/sec. | 241MB/sec. | 119MB/sec. |
Read/write speeds tested using Blackmagic Disk Speed Test. Higher numbers are better.
How does that performance compare? Last year, I tested Intel’s fastest consumer drive, the 520 Series SSD. The Intel 520 Series clocked in with 456MB/s read and 241MB/s write speeds. That SSD also booted in nine seconds.
However, while the Intel 520 Series is faster than the Ultra Plus, you’ll also pay a bit more. For example, prices for the 240GB model start at $245, as compared to the 256GB Ultra Plus that can be found at $170.
I also compared the drive with what would typically come in a laptop: a hard drive. I tested the same MacBook Pro with a Western Digital WD Black 500GB drive, and saw maximum speeds of 122MB/s for reads and 119MB/s for writes. Using the hard drive, the system booted in 21 seconds, nearly double that of the Ultra Plus.
Of course, a hard drive is also a lot easier on your wallet. The WD Black 500GB drive retails for just $64.
Bottom line
Overall, I was impressed with the SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD. The boot times were excellent, as were the data transfer speeds. The shutdown time was a bit disappointing, but nothing that would dissuade me from purchasing this affordable drive.
Lucas Mearian covers storage, disaster recovery and business continuity, financial services infrastructure and health care IT for Computerworld. Follow Lucas on Twitter at @lucasmearian or subscribe to Lucas’s RSS feed . His e-mail address is [email protected].
See more by Lucas Mearian on Computerworld.com.
Related:
- Solid-State Drives
- Data Management
- Intel
Senior Reporter Lucas Mearian covers Windows, Future of Work issues, mobile, Apple in the enterprise, and healthcare IT.
Copyright © 2013 IDG Communications, Inc.
7 inconvenient truths about the hybrid work trend
SanDisk Ultra II 240GB SSD Review — SanDisk’s First TLC NAND SSD
The Ultra II Gets TLC With A Dash Of SLC – SanDisk’s First TLC NAND SSD
When Samsung released their 840 Series drive back near the end of 2012, it was the first consumer drive to feature TLC (Triple Level Cell) NAND which took everyone by surprise as up until then, MLC drives ruled the consumer roost. The drive proved to be quite popular with decent performance and stellar power usage along with a very modest price tag. SanDisk has decided to drop some TLC NAND into their second iteration of the Ultra series drives which should provide some solid performance numbers along with budget level pricing. Without peeking at the specifications, we surmised that performance would be above average with low power consumption and we weren’t wrong.
SanDisk has really been coming on strong in the SSD market and should be considered one of the premiere drive makers given their expertise and access to raw materials and manufacturing. As such, it didn’t come as a total surprise to see them out a TLC based drive but there are many in the industry don’t believe TLC is a viable long term component for client SSDs. Enter the SanDisk Ultra II Solid-State Drive. Available in capacities of 120GB, 240GB, 480GB and 960GB, it covers all the bases while offering a splendid read/write rating of up to 550MB/s and 500MB/s respectively. IOPS specifications are solid too with reads and writes all above 80K and then some depending on the model. So far, it’s only available as 2.5″ drive although they could easily make an M.2 or mSATA drive given the size of the PCB in the review sample we received (check out page 2).
If you don’t recall, TLC is technically a form of MLC (Multi-Level Cell) and contains three bits per cell rather than the two in MLC and the one in SLC. The diagram below shows, at a high level, how this works. With more data per cell, TLC NAND can cram in more dies per package and is generally a little cheaper to manufacture than MLC and a lot cheaper than SLC. The downside is, it’s generally slower and because of increased write-amplification its overall endurance is typically less than the others. Having some SLC on board to cache the data before flushing to the TLC greatly reduces the write-amplification and therefore drive endurance is improved.
SanDisk Ultra II Specifications and Features
Specification: | Parameter: | 120GB | 240GB | 480GB | 960GB |
Part Number: | SDSSDHII-120G-G25 | SDSSDHII-240G-G25 | SDSSDHII-480G-G25 | SDSSDHII-960G-G25 | |
MSRP/Retail: | $79. 99 / $79.99 | $114.99 / $109.99 | $219.99 / $199.99 | $429.99 / $379.99 | |
Flash: | SanDisk 1Ynm, X3 ABL, Toggle | ||||
Interface: | SATA 6GB/s backward compatible | ||||
CrystalDiskMark: | |||||
Seq Read (up to): | 550MB/s | 550MB/s | 550MB/s | 550MB/s | |
Seq Write (up to): | 500MB/s | 500MB/s | 500MB/s | 500MB/s | |
Rnd Read (up to): | 81K IOPS | 91K IOPS | 98K IOPS | 99K IOPS | |
Rnd Write (up to): | 80K IOPS | 83K IOPS | 83K IOPS | 83K IOPS | |
Power (typical): | |||||
Active Power: | 85mW | 85mW | 85mW | 85mW | |
Max Read Operating: | 2. 5 W | 2.7 W | 2.7 W | 2.9 W | |
Max Write Operating: | 3.3 W | 4.5 W | 4.5 W | 4.6 W | |
Slumber: | 75mW | 75mW | 85mW | 85mW | |
MTBF: | Telcordia, Stress Part | 1.75 Million Hours | |||
Weight: | Individual Product: | 58 g | 58 g | 58 g | 61 g |
Size: | 2.5″ SFF-8223 & -8201: | 70mm x 69.85mm x 100.5mm | |||
Environmental: | Operating Temp: | 0C to 70C | |||
Non-Operating Temp: | -55C to 85C | ||||
Warranty: | 3 Year limited warranty |
- SATA 8Gb/s Compliant
- ATA-ACS v6
- NCQ support upo to queue depth = 32
- Support for TRIM
- S. M.A.R.T. feature supported
- Advanced Flash Management:
- nCache 2.0 – Non Volatile Write Cache
- Multi-Page Recovery
- XOR Recovery
- Dynamic and Static Wear-leveling
- Bad Block Management
- Backgrounf Garbage Collection
- Advanced features:
- Tiered caching – Volatile and non-volatile cache
- Supports multi stream – improves user experience in multitasking systems
- Minimal write amplification – increase endurance and performance
- Support For Thermal Throttling:
- Performance will be throttled in the event junction temperature of critical components is measured to be exceeding the maximum allowable for the product
Along with the TLC NAND is a host of other technical features on the Ultra II that makes everything work. They are all there to bolster performance and mitigate undue wear on the drive as TLC has a lower endurance rating than MLC.
SanDisk’s nCache 2.0 technology leverages tiered caching to handles this process and all the while improving write performance as an added perk. The nCache process assures all of the data is written to the SLC blocks initially prior to flushing to the TLC. Note that the diagram indicates that the number of channels is split between four and eight channels because the 120GB and 240GB drives use a four channel controller and the larger capacities use an eight channel controller. This is simply because on the larger drivers, the are more than four dies available in the array.
Since, as our diagram above illustrated, there are three bits of data in TLC cells versus the one in SLC, the data that is cached in SLC is “folded” in triplet to the TLC cells. Since this is handled on die, any extra overhead on the controller is mitigated and latency is not unduly impacted. This “On Chip Copy” as they term it, is unique to SanDisk and is the most efficient method of handling this process that we’ve seen.
A big concern with SSDs is accuracy and the need for error correction. In addition to the normal controller ECC, SanDisk is leveraging what they call Multi Page Recovery (M.P.R.) to handle error correction by means of parity and redundancy of pages. If an error is detected that ECC cannot recover, the page is recovered thanks to the redundancy and all is right with the world again. The illustration actually does a nice job of showing what occurs.
Finally, we’ve discussed the SanDisk Dashboard application before and it’s a super nice tool for checking out drive metrics, secure erasing, updating firmware. They’ve made a few improvements in this version including support for 17 languages, a sanitize function, crypto erase and assistance from “Live Chat” or ask a tech support question via buttons in the GUI. Bundled with the SSD Dashboard is a suite of software tools although all are either limited or trial versions. First is cloning software from Apricorn call EZ GIG IV, then Trend Micro Titanium Antivirus+ and rounded out with Absolute LoJack security software.
Questions or comments?
View this thread in our forums!
Sandisk Ultra 3D SSD review: Big capacity, fast performance
Reviews
Faster than all the TLC NAND SSDs we’ve tested to day, and available in up to 2TB capacity
By Jon Jacobi
Freelance contributor, PCWorld
Sandisk
At a Glance
Expert’s Rating
Pros
- Very good overall and sustained performance
- Affordable in all capacities
Cons
- A bit slow reading smaller files and folders
- 2TB version has a lower TBW rating
Our Verdict
The Ultra 3D and its nearly identical WD Blue 3D sibling are a step up from TLC drives in performance, but deliver the same 1TB and 2TB of capacity at roughly the same price. Not as fast as SSDs such as Kingston’s HyperX Savage and Crucial’s BX300, but not limited in capacity. Short list.
There are still lots of PCs out there that would take on new life with a simple hard-drive-to-SSD upgrade, and Sandisk’s Ultra 3D is one of the best, if not the best SSD for the job. Using the same 3D (stacked, or layered) TLC NAND found in the WD Blue 3D SSD we also tested (WD owns Sandisk) it offers the capacity of TLC without the write performance penalties we’ve experienced previously.
The Sandisk Ultra 3D comes in the standard SATA 6Gbps, 2.5-inch, 7mm-thick form factor that’s the norm for the category these days. Being only 7mm thick means it’s suitable for upgrading a number of mid-sized and desktop replacement laptops. (The closely related WD Blue 3D—Western Digital owns Sandisk—also ships in the M.2 form factor, if that’s what you need.)
Though most users will only see the Ultra 3D when installing it in a computer, we should note that the Ultra 3D is a notch above the average drive in appearance—black, with a classy red logo. If you’re filling out the storage on a gaming rig with clear panels, that could be a consideration.
Mentioned in this article
Ultra 3D SSD 250GB
The Ultra 3D is available in 250GB, 500GB, 1TB (the size we tested), and 2TB capacities, which we saw online for about $100, $165, $285, and $550 respectively. That’s around 25 cents per GB in the highest capacity. The 250GB model is rated for 100TBW (TeraBytes Written) over the lifetime of the drive, the 500GB model for 200TBW, the 1TB version for 400TBW, and the 2TB version for 500TBW.
We’re not sure why the TBW rating for the largest capacity would drop from 40 percent per GB to 25 percent. Perhaps it’s not over-provisioned as heartily—in other words, there’s not as much extra NAND on board to replace worn-out cells. All capacities are covered by a 3-year warranty.
Performance
The Ultra 3D’s good performance is notable for not suffering the write performance penalty you see when similarly priced TLC NAND-based drives run out of cache. WD/Sandisk claims this is due to a more multi-tiered caching technique combining TLC and TLC treated as SLC. That’s what everyone else does, but apparently WD is either better at it, or uses more cache. We threw an extra 320GB data set at it to make sure it could sustain the pace. It did.
We test using AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark, then back that up with real-world copying of a single large 20GB file, as well as a 20GB mix of smaller files and folders.
As you can see below, there’s not a whole lot of difference between the Ultra 3D’s performance and that of MLC drives. Note the lack of a dropout in the AS SSD 10GB write test, where the Samsung EVO series and other TLC drives suffer.
IDG
The Sandisk Ultra 3D is faster overall than any other TLC drive we’ve tested.
The Ultra 3D didn’t write our 20GB mix of files and folders as quickly as we’d hoped, but it’s still a good performer overall. And certainly faster writing than the Samsung EVO series.
IDG
For some reason, as you can see in the chart above, the Ultra 3D didn’t fare all that well reading our 20GB mix of files and folders, but overall, it’s still a better performer than the Samsung 750 EVO. And it’s certainly ballpark in most respects with the average MLC NAND SSD.
Conclusion
The Sandisk Ultra 3D doesn’t displace the Crucial BX300 as our current top choice among bargain or mid-range SSDs, unless you need more than that drive’s 480GB maximum capacity. Then it’s the Ultra 3D for sure, even over the Samsung 750 EVO. Fast, affordable, good-looking, a nice TBW rating… What’s not to like?
Note: This article was edited to reflect new testing with a 320GB data set rather than the 80GB data set used originally.
Author: Jon L. Jacobi, Freelance contributor
Jon Jacobi is a musician, former x86/6800 programmer, and long-time computer enthusiast. He writes reviews on TVs, SSDs, dash cams, remote access software, Bluetooth speakers, and sundry other consumer-tech hardware and software.
new under the guise of the old (page 2)
Visual inspection
SanDisk Plus and SanDisk Ultra II are also different: in the first case it is an all-plastic case, in the second — plastic and metal.
Both drives are labeled on the bottom with technical information: name, capacity, and serial number. But there is no data on the factory version of the firmware.
If we talk about SanDisk Plus, then there is one more important point, but more on that later.
Shortened printed circuit boards with double-sided mounting of the element base are hidden inside both heroes of the review.
recommendations
At the same time, the SanDisk Ultra II printed circuit board contacts the case through a thermal pad, while SanDisk Plus, as a more budgetary SSD, is deprived of such a pleasant bonus. However, given that the case is completely made of plastic, there would still be no normal heat dissipation (and, looking ahead, let’s say that in vain).
And here a surprise appeared: not only 19 nm memory, but also Marvell 88SS9189 and 88SS9190 controllers are a thing of the past. It turns out that now the SanDisk Ultra II is completely identical in hardware to the SanDisk X400 and WD Blue SSD — they also use SanDisk 05478 064G memory chips and the Marvell 88SS1074 NAND controller.
Plextor M7V and Kingston UV400 are close relatives — they use the same controller and TLC NAND memory, manufactured according to the 15 nm process technology (Toshiba and SanDisk have been working together on NAND in recent years), but with different settings at the microcode level .
The current SanDisk Plus is based on the Silicon Motion SM2256S controller, which, interestingly, does not have external buffer memory in this case. SanDisk 05498 064G memory chips (by the way, 15 nm TLC NAND, as in SanDisk Ultra II) from SanDisk Plus can also be found under the WD brand — in WD Green SSD, but just these drives are not completely identical: as part of WD Green Silicon Motion SM2258XT NAND controller is used. Of the direct analogues, I can now only recall the SanDisk Z410. Thus, the early SanDisk Plus and the modern one are also fundamentally different SSDs.
Curiously, the Silicon Motion website only mentions SM2256, without any additional prefixes in the designation, despite the fact that there are at least three versions of it: SM2256K (ADATA Premier SP550, Geil Zenith R3, AMD Radeon R3, Colorful SS500P, Mushkin Triactor), SM2256G (Crucial BX200, Transcend SSD220S) and SM2256S (SanDisk Plus G26/J26, SanDisk Z410). The first two are with external buffer memory, the third one, as we can see, has no buffer memory chips. At the same time, the dimensions of the chips of these controllers are the same, which may indicate the lack of integration of DRAM crystals, as, for example, Toshiba does with Marvell controllers, and the dimensions of the chips are «real» — judging by the layout of printed circuit boards, pin compatibility is not observed.
Indirectly in favor of the lack of this kind of integration is the fact that the 480 GB SanDisk Z410 / Plus I saw use exactly the same printed circuit board, the difference is only in larger flash memory chips — 512 MB DRAM is quite difficult to pack into a controller chip. Most likely, DRAM is still packed into the SM2256S chip, but a very small fixed amount, for example, 32 MB, like in the Phison S11.
In total, the volume of both SanDisk models is 256 GB, available to the user — 240. At the same time, the user volume is traditionally indicated in decimal system (1 GB is used equal to 1,000,000,000, not 1,073,741,824 bytes), and therefore in reality the user only 223. 57 GB available. The controller firmware uses the remaining volume for service purposes: for wear leveling, as a backup pool for replacing failed memory cells, storing checksums, and so on.
We have already noted several times the fact of a radical change in the hardware platform in SanDisk Plus. But how to distinguish them? In fact, this is possible — according to the article code. For SanDisk Plus, this designation is SDSSDA-***G-***, where the first group of asterisks corresponds to the volume (120, 240, 480 GB), and the second is a letter and two numbers. The letter indicates the geographic location (G — global market, J — Japan — Japanese market), and two numbers — our desired distinguishing feature: 25 — SM2246XT and MLC NAND, 26 — SM2258 and TLC NAND.
The trouble is that not all stores, when forming their price lists, pay attention to this feature, and some do not distinguish SanDisk Plus modifications at all, indicating old specifications in the catalog, and therefore, often with a purposeful purchase of the G25 in a store, they can give G26.
And then there’s SanDisk itself complicated identification:
The label on the SanDisk Plus case only lists the first two label groups, SDSSDA-***G. The key third can only be found on the packaging. If this is not a problem with a new drive, then with the acquisition in the secondary market there will be additional difficulties.
However, which modification to give preference to is not at all an unambiguous question, as one might think. SanDisk Plus (and its corporate counterpart SanDisk Z400s), like a number of other SSDs based on the Silicon Motion SM2246XT controller, is a vivid example of how engineering errors are discovered not during classic tests, but as a result of practical operation: it turned out that with a strong filling drive (approximately 85-90% of user space), the internal activity of the device increases dramatically.
The end result of this is a literally soaring Write Amplification: for some of the samples I saw, it reached 1300-1500 (in other words, for every 1 GB of data from the system, there were ~ 1. 3-1.5 TB of writing to flash memory). As a result, the flash memory array wore out in a matter of months, and the drive failed.
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex.Zen or telegram channel @overclockers_news — these are convenient ways to follow new materials on the site. With pictures, extended descriptions and no ads.
Review SanDisk Ultra II 240GB
Pros
- Consistently decent performance
- First non-Samsung consumer TLC SSD
- 9.5 mm kit
Cons
- Samsung 850 Evo — just £10 more than
- No endurance rating
Key Features
- Review Price: £100.00
- 240 GB capacity (223 GB formatted)
- 7 mm form factor
- SATA 3 interface
- 3 year warranty RTB
What is SanDisk Ultra II 240 GB?
The latest drive from storage specialists SanDisk is a mid-range product that really shows how far SSDs have come — until recently, a £100 240GB drive would have raised a lot of surprises.
The Ultra II’s £100 price tag means it costs just under 42p per gigabyte. This puts it in an interesting position: cheaper than the Samsung 850 Evo, which costs 44p/GB, but not as affordable as the 30p/GB Crucial MX100.
SEE ALSO: Review of the Best SSDs
SanDisk Ultra II 240GB — Design
The average price didn’t stop SanDisk from trying something new with the Ultra II. This is the first SanDisk SSD to deploy TLC NAND and is the first time it has been used in a consumer drive that does not carry the Samsung brand. It’s a big step, and it’s taken a while — Samsung’s first TLC drives debuted way back in 2012.
The choice of TLC memory has its pros and cons. The cells used to form the memory of this drive can hold three bits of data, which increases the density, so the same amount of silicon has more storage space. This helps reduce cost, but it also reduces productivity because the electricity has more distance to travel within each of these cells.
Ultra II is more common elsewhere. The memory used is built on a 19nm manufacturing process and uses horizontal layers rather than the 40nm vertical layers chosen by Samsung for its 3D V-NAND system.
SanDisk uses two Marvell controllers inside Ultra II drives. The smaller 120 GB and 240 GB models use the 88SS9190 hardware, while the 480 GB and 960 GB versions use the 88SS9189 hardware. The former is a 4-channel controller and the latter is an 8-channel chip, a choice SanDisk likely made due to its higher demands on its larger drives. The latter is also the same controller that Crucial used in their MX100.
The SanDisk drive comes with an nCache feature that uses 10 GB of free space per 240 GB in SLC-style caching mode. This is a handy feature that will improve response time when working with frequently used files. It’s like Samsung’s fast mode, but SanDisk didn’t find room on that drive for encryption.
We usually talk about endurance ratings when discussing SSD specifications, but SanDisk doesn’t publish them for the Ultra II. This shouldn’t be a problem for most home or gaming PCs that don’t have big requirements for SSDs when it comes to writing data, but those who need a hard drive should look elsewhere.
SanDisk Ultra II 240GB — performance
TLC memory not
Fastest, and the Ultra II’s lack of raw pacing was identified in our SSD AS
tests. In the sequential read test, the Ultra II managed 505MB/s.
is a mid-range result that is not as good as the MX9’s 519Mbps speed.
SanDisk beat the MX100 with a 473 Mbps file write speed, but that result wasn’t enough to take it beyond the average table — and it wasn’t enough
0005
beat the Samsung 850 Evo, either.
The situation was not very good
better when processing small files. The SanDisk 4K read/write
at 30Mbps and 72Mbps both lagged behind the MX100, and the 4K-64
test hits with a cheaper competitor — faster at reading,
but slower at writing. None of these figures can match Samsung’s Evo,
, which remained convincingly ahead throughout these tests.
The
Ultra II did well in our Atto tests, which evaluate the
‘s performance over a wide range of file sizes. In the 8K test of the
, SanDisk returned read and write speeds of 407MB/s and 391MB/s of the
, miles ahead of anything Crucial could do. It was
supported in the rest of our tests: when reading files
SanDisk’s peak of 558 MB/s outpaced the MX100’s record of
552 Mb/s, but when writing Ultra it topped out at 507 Mb/s
is better than the Crucial 346MBps result.
The read peak of the SanDisk
was better than the Samsung Evo too, although Samsung resisted the
with a better write result of 530MBps.
Good form did not last
in IOMeter tests. In the all-in-one test, the Ultra II
1843 I/O result was sluggish — about 600 points behind the Crucial,
and several times slower than Samsung’s top-end SSDs. The raw SanDisk
70Mbps speed was also bad — slower than both drives — and its
the average response time was also behind.
The Samsung Evo, meanwhile, beat both drives, with its best all-in-one score of 5270 IOPS and its top performance of 202 MB/s.
Other things to consider
The
Ultra II includes the three year warranty we’re talking about now
expect from affordable SSDs — this deal is in line with what’s on offer from
MX100. However, this is two years less than the Samsung 850 Evo
coverage.
We no longer expect many accessories inside the SSD
box, but that didn’t stop SanDisk from including a 9.5mm spacer with the
Ultra II. This is a handy kit that allows you to install this
7mm drive into spaces designed for 9.5mm hardware, which means it can be easier
fits Ultra II inside old PCs and laptops without SSD
rattle around.
Three other Ultra II options are
available. The 120GB is the cheapest at just £55, but that’s
46p per gigabyte — slightly higher than the
240GB version we reviewed. The 480GB version costs £155 or
32p per gigabyte, while the giant 960GB model costs £342, which works out to
at 36p per gigabyte.
Should I buy the SanDisk Ultra II 240GB?
The
240GB option costs a reasonable £100 making it one of the cheapest
SSDs we saw recently. The modest price and TLC architecture mean
mid-table performance, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing — the AS
SSD Ultra II traded blows with the Crucial MX100 and the SanDisk
delivered a landslide victory over its rival in the all-encompassing Atto
Suite.
Ultra II stumbled in IOMeter where MX100 ended up
Slightly faster, but none of these affordable SSDs can match the top
pursuit of speed — in general, Ultra II is not
lose a lot of ground.
Reasonable AS SSD pace and solid Atto
performance means we’d rather buy a SanDisk than a Crucial drive — the
is more expensive, but it’s faster and a bit more consistent.
There’s a sting in this story and it’s the Samsung 850 Evo — it’s
only ten pounds more expensive but it’s faster and better
guaranteed. If the budget is not important, we would choose the Evo.
SEE ALSO: Review of the best laptops
judgment
The
Ultra II is faster than the Crucial MX100 in several key tests, the
and we’re happy to pay the extra money for it. There is a sting in history from the
Samsung 850 Evo, which is faster and only £10 more expensive.
Ultra II is a good effort, but not good enough.
Mike has worked as a technology journalist for over a decade and has written for most of the UK’s most prominent websites and magazines. While writing articles about technology, he developed obsessions…
Unlike other sites, we thoroughly test every product we review. We use standard industry benchmarks to properly compare features. We will always tell you what we find. We never, ever accept money for a product review.
Tell us what you think — send your letters to the editor.
Alfawise NT-256 256 GB and SanDisk Ultra 3D 250 GB Solid State Drives Overview
2018 SSD Test Methodology
We’ve been testing NVMe SSDs more and more lately. It is clear why — these are the most «progressive» and interesting to demanding users. In addition, they are also becoming cheaper quite quickly, which only spurs interest. But so far, the matter has not yet reached price parity, so mass sales fall on “boring” SATA models, where everything has been done without any discoveries for a long time. And if anything changes, then only in the direction of lower prices. And at the same time, it is not always possible to maintain (or at least not significantly worsen) speed characteristics, which leads to a funny effect: the best models of 2014-2015 (such as Samsung 850 Pro or Sandisk Extreme Pro) remain the best SATA drives in general. For a very simple reason: small crystals (usually 64 Gb each) of MLC memory with a capacity of a quarter of a terabyte or more allow you to fully utilize the speed capabilities of the SATA interface. Of course, such drives were very expensive — but at least they were on sale. And something like this is either missing now, or … it’s still not cheap, but it works no better (albeit no worse). In general, was closed by the district committee — everyone went to the front . On the other front — set performance records using the PCIe interface and the NVMe protocol. Or not records — we have also already tested budget models for this segment repeatedly and found interesting features in them.
But that doesn’t mean it’s time to stop testing SATA drives. Moreover, as already mentioned, while they are sold more. And something not too familiar can be found here.
Alfawise NT-256 256 GB
While testing a variety of solid state drives for 10 years, we regularly encountered JMicron controllers. Of course, only in the budget segment, but regularly. Now these products are sold under the Maxiotek brand, but the essence remains the same. In particular, a four-channel single-core DRAM-less Maxio MAS0902A-B2C is used here. What’s funny, it is marked as hipstar CS1802A, which is more typical for products from another Chinese manufacturer, namely KingSpec, so it’s not clear who is in what relationship with whom. But we were more concerned about other issues. The drive, of course, was bought as usual for mere pennies for use in low-load conditions, but … Manufacturers “love” the MAS0902A for its omnivorous nature: Adata, for example, produces the Ultimate SU630 QLC line on it. There was no desire to repeat history, so the chips were studied meticulously — and from all sides. It turned out that this is a Spectek FBNB0KB1T21KDCABJ4-6 AL with a capacity of 1152 Gb — which is both good and not very good. It is believed that under the Spectek Micron brand it sells products not of the first degree of freshness (to put it mildly) — but at least it’s clear where to look (and not as it sometimes happens). And the atypical capacity is due to the use of 32-layer TLC crystals of 384 Gb each (the very “first generation 3D” from Intel and Micron). The memory is not fast, which, paired with a budget controller, should generally lead to poor performance. But there is a lot of it — not only to provide a capacity of 256 GB, but also to leave more for the SLC cache and backup cells. This is very good — since recently it has become a (not) good tradition to use five such crystals for the production of 240 GB drives — it just fits in, but completely without a margin. And here with him.
In principle, everything that interested us was how it works in general: we often encountered such a memory, but never at all with a controller. As already mentioned, in practice, close prices can already be found in local retail, so ordering an SSD on online sites is useful primarily just to satisfy curiosity 🙂 And since there were no serious requirements in this case, too : otherwise something else would have been chosen. For example, similar to the second test participant.
SanDisk Ultra 3D 250 GB
Testing SSD Intel 545s, Samsung 850 Evo, 860 Evo and 860 Pro, SanDisk Ultra 3D, Silicon Power Velox V85 and WD Blue 3D using the updated method
In this case, we did not expect any surprises, since we have already tested SanDisk Ultra 3D 500 GB, and WD Blue 3D 500 GB, making sure they are identical in hardware. Marvell 88SS1074 controller and 64-layer BiCS 3D NAND TLC flash memory dies co-produced by SanDisk and Toshiba — and slightly different firmware. At the time of the mentioned testing, a program was already launched to increase the warranty period for Blue 3D to five years — but with Ultra 3D there was no clarity on this issue. Now — there is: also the same five years. Why did we decide to return to a no longer new line? It required the results of the youngest model in the family, and that is precisely the 250 GB version. There are cheaper ones — WD Green / SanDisk SSD Plus, respectively, but we will deal with the budget segment in detail next time. Today — «the youngest of the middle», since Intel and Samsung have already tested similar solutions, so it’s time to do WD.
Comparison samples
Intel 545s 256 GB
Samsung V-NAND SSD 860 Evo 250 GB
It is clear that the “Chinese” is not a competitor to this pair, but he is, in fact, out of competition. And it is interesting to evaluate not only the state of affairs in the budget segment, but also to compare it with the devices of the «middle class». Moreover, SanDisk Ultra 3D is such in full.
Testing
Test procedure
The procedure is described in detail in a separate article . There you can get acquainted with the hardware and software used.
Performance in applications
In the first approximation — nothing criminal: SSD is SSD. Unlike hard drives, which are radically “not enough” for such loads, they do not turn out to be a bottleneck. What’s in the hands of just budget devices.
Potentially those are slower than non-budget ones. But not too much. And only potentially.
Interestingly, the previous version of the package operates with lighter loads — but in it the differences between the test subjects increase. Contrary to worldly logic. But in general, she tells us the same thing — using any SSD as a system drive of some media center (where intensive disk loads are not expected) is not only possible, but necessary. And even the cheapest of sufficient capacity is possible — since the more expensive ones will not fundamentally differ.
Sequential Operations
Reading is a simple and easy operation, and SSDs tend to be multi-threaded, so almost any SATA device today can already “run into” the limitations of SATA itself.
But the record… the record is yes. To be honest, this is the first time we see this in a low-level utility. Although nothing is impossible — whether it will still be on real file operations.
Random access
In fact, these scenarios «throw» the main load on the controller — so the results often do not depend on memory. On the other hand, no miracle happened: no matter how much you rename JMicron, it will remain JMicron.
However, it is also quite noticeable that the controller fails to cope only with very long queues. Short (and much closer to reality) sometimes allow it to stay at the level of mid-range drives — and the same capacity. And this is already a good result.
The situation is even better when reading in blocks of 32K and 128K with a single queue. Such requests regularly arise when working with the most common software — therefore, we consider this scenario to be practically important. And everything is fine with him — for any SSD. This is what makes them similar to each other — and radically distinguishes them from hard drives.
Working with large files
Traditionally, we do not comment on reading — at present, it is very difficult to create a drive that «slows down» in such scenarios. Although it is possible, but for this you will have to make a special effort 🙂
As for the recording, here, just, you need to work hard to solve the inverse problem. And it is clearly seen that TLC memory (especially not the fastest) in small volumes is not a panacea at all — both QLC drives we have tested so far in this scenario work faster than the “weak” MAS09 controller can provide02A. And once again, we can recall that during the reign of MLC there were no serious problems under such a load, although the average level of controllers used left much to be desired — just the memory itself «could write» quickly.
Reading with writing — similar. In competition with hard drives, it “rescues” that they also “do not like” such loads very much — especially laptop models. But still — some solid-state drives are not to be said to be noticeably faster. Even with a (once considered serious) capacity of a quarter of a terabyte, they can slow down.
Ratings
Considering everything seen above, it is not surprising that by the standards of this program, the Alfawise NT-256 is even slightly faster than the SanDisk Ultra 3D 250 GB — due to the win in write tests. And once again we are convinced that we must not forget about the capacity when choosing. For example, in the Samsung 860 Evo line, there is practically no difference in performance between 250 and 500 GB (which makes the first option not the most interesting quarter-terabyte drive in general), and in the SanDisk / WD range, such a change immediately changes the speed by 15% — twenty%. That is, in principle, the differences between two neighboring «relatives» in the same row may turn out to be more significant than between radically different products. Well, in general, such a capacity begins to gradually turn into something “starting” and nothing more — for some lines of drives it is already minimal. Will have go above . Or vice versa — try to save money by purchasing a product of a lower level.
Because in this case the performance will be lower, but not necessarily noticeable. In general, it is clearly seen that, with rare exceptions, almost all the SATA drives we have tested so far fit into a fairly narrow range «by points». Which, of course, must be treated with caution, since it is possible that there is simply a proportional decrease in performance across all groups, and there may be unsuccessful behavior in specific and not too hypothetical scenarios, but … You can use them as a quick guide.
Total
As you can see, life goes on — although it is concentrated mainly in the budget segment, and even among little-known second-tier manufacturers. If we talk about the products of large manufacturers, then their SATA solutions of the middle class belong, at best, to the first half of last year, or even to the end of the year before last. The 860 Evo update has begun, however, but just for new memory and «quiet» — since it does not significantly change anything. Yes, and it can’t. In the 970 Evo it could — but not here.
As a result, it turns out that the main announcements relate to the use of QLC memory, the NVMe protocol — or all of this at once. On the other hand, it’s not worth expecting that tomorrow SATA middlings will disappear altogether — this process will be long. But we should not expect any «breakthroughs» in this segment of the market.
EVO met an equal / Habr
Computer electronics manufacturer Western Digital has expanded its high-end 3D NAND SSD lineup with two new NVMe SSDs featuring SanDisk’s 64-layer 3D SAND NAND Flash. Even with the release of the SATA SSD (Western Digital first brought 3D-NAND to the retail consumer market), the company introduced the same drive on behalf of two brands with identical hardware: WD and SanDisk.
The names are on everyone’s lips: WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO. Recall that the WD Black SSD was the first NVMe for the retail market from Western Digital. It used a Marvell controller and 15nm planar TLC NAND and ended up being «lost» in the bottom of the NVMe SSD performance rankings, while also trying to see it as a significant advantage over SATA SSDs in heavier workloads. also was not successful. The SanDisk Extreme PRO name hasn’t been seen in a long time, but in the meantime it has a rich heritage: the original SanDisk Extreme PRO was a SATA SSD with MLC NAND in the high-end segment, and was a worthy competitor to the Samsung 850 PRO. The SATA SanDisk Extreme PRO entered the market before the 850 PRO and became the first SSD in the consumer market with a 10-year manufacturer’s warranty, which in turn forced Samsung to give the same warranty to its 850 PRO.
Reusing names without any clear indication of generations or model year can easily lead to confusion. Western Digital at least made sure that the new drives differ in capacity from their predecessors: the first generation WD Black is 256 GB and 512 GB, the original Extreme PRO is 240 GB, 480 GB and 960 GB, and the new WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO are 250 GB, 500 GB and 1000 GB. However, last year’s WD Black will be on the market with this year’s model for several more months, although in fact they are completely different products.
The new WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO SSDs are based on the same platform as the SS7 Western Digital SN720 announced earlier this year. In addition to moving from 15nm planar TLC NAND to 64-layer BiCS 3D NAND, the new SSDs feature a new Western Digital SSD controller instead of Marvell’s. This is a major shift towards vertical integration for Western Digital/SanDisk, one might say the company’s best strategy for differentiating its products. The market is now brimming with dozens of brands that use controllers, if not all drive designs sourced from a very small group of vendors.
According to the WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO specifications, we have a high-performance drive with 3+ GB/s sequential read speeds even on the 250GB model, and high random access rates on the 500GB and larger models. Record endurance ratings are also at a fairly high level: it is 0.3-0.4 per day for five years. MSRP positions the WD Black as a direct competitor to the Samsung 960 EVO, outperforming most of the latest NVMe SSDs. It is worth noting that entry-level NVMe SSDs occupy the fastest growing market segment, and manufacturers of various brands are concentrated on it.
The new WD Black is capable (at least momentarily) of reaching the power limits of the M. 2 form factor. Importantly, instead of a heatsink, Western Digital uses an unusual «design»: the controller is placed in the middle of the bar and is surrounded by NAND flash memory on both sides. This arrangement of chips prevents overheating.
Drives will initially be offered in capacities from 250 GB to 1 TB, although SanDisk branded versions exclude the 250 GB model. Deliveries should begin by the end of the month. Although Western Digital did not mention its plans to release 2 TB models, if necessary, drives of this capacity will see the light of day, especially since the company has already announced the release of SN720 with a capacity of 2 TB.
Western Digital NVMe — NAND & Controller
Noteworthy Aspects The WD Black 3D NAND SSD is a new in-house SSD controller and the latest 64-layer BiCS 3D NAND in one of the NVMe SSDs. 64-layer 3D-NAND (BiCS 3) is the third generation of SanDisk/Toshiba 3D-NAND. The first two generations had 24 and 48 layers, respectively, but were released on a «modest» scale. None of the previous generations were produced in sufficient quantities to displace Toshiba/SanDisk 15nm planar NAND. What can not be said about the production of the 64-layer version, which is growing at an accelerated pace. Western Digital already used 64-layer NAND in SanDisk Ultra 3D and WD Blue 3D SATA SSDs late last year.
BiCS (Bit Cost Scalable) technology allows for a 1.4x increase in packing density and an increase in the number of layers to 64, built on charge trap cells — a complex design that eliminates almost all the disadvantages of planar NAND. Bit density can increase from one 3D generation to the next, due to predictable scaling both vertically and horizontally. The presence of more electrons per NAND cell in the charge trap design compared to the floating gate design in planar NAND (at very small geometries) guarantees a high level of reliability and durability of the 3D NAND cell compared to the best examples of planar NAND. The disadvantage is the high cost of upgrading 2D NAND equipment for the production of 3D NAND wafers.
Although BiCS 4 (96-layer) production is rapidly increasing, this year the favorite from Western Digital will be replaced by 64-layer BiCS 3 NAND, which is the subject of this review.
In terms of controllers, Western Digital decided to move from a Marvell product to their own design. The main reason is the creation of an architecture that will be optimized for BiCS flash: the controller will not need to support NAND from other vendors, it will be designed taking into account the development of the BiCS line. NVD SSDs have performance limits, which is why it’s so important to find a way to extract every possible bit of performance from the available NAND.
Not surprisingly, almost all flash manufacturers have their own controller on their flagship NVMe SSDs. Samsung uses its own controllers on all of its SSD devices, Intel uses its own controller for the SSD-900p (Optane). Even conventional and low-end SSDs from top vendors, while using a purchased controller chip, come with internally developed firmware. Vertical integration, ranging from flash fabrication and IC assembly to system integration in the form of NVMe or SATA SSDs, allows vendors to optimize the performance of their products.
The new controller has a tri-core architecture (possibly using Arm Cortex-R cores) manufactured using a 28nm process. It is designed and engineered to be scalable — the current controller can communicate with the host using a PCIe 3.0 x4 link or x2-link like the Western Digital SN520. The controller architecture will allow future products (using controller variations) to hit the market faster and add new features. Western Digital is now able to segment its NVMe product stack. The controller in the Western Digital Black 3D NAND SSD is optimized for client workloads, including PC gaming and high-performance commercial applications. The company is confident that the new controller architecture will exist at least until NVMe SSDs go beyond PCIe 3 x4 interfaces.
Unlike other manufacturers of NVMe SSD controllers, Western Digital has paid less attention to firmware and more to hardware accelerators to ensure communication between the host and flash memory (processing the NVMe command and transferring data from flash to host). Power management and thermal management are performed without the help of processor cores. Firmware is only used for selective command processing (eg, S.M.A.R.T data fetching, Flash Translation Layer (FTL) algorithm, and exception handling). If you do not use the processor for all critical tasks, the controller will not experience a power shortage.
To improve performance, the WD NVMe SSD architecture implements tiered caching (nCache). WD Black 3D NAND NVMe SSD uses nCache 3.0 (compared to nCache 2.0 contains many updates).
Before going into details, it’s interesting to look at how nCache technology has evolved over the years. In its first generation, nCache technology was designed to cache the NAND mapping table and small writes (less than 4 KB) in the SLC segment on the die. In the second version (first introduced in SanDisk Ultra II), all write operations were intercepted in the pseudo-SLC cache, the volume of which was increased to 5GB for every 120GB of drive capacity, and direct copying of data from the SLC buffer to TLC was implemented at the chip level, bypassing controller, which made it possible to use a more economical controller model without performance loss. nCache 2.0 placed the NAND mapping table in the SLC cache area.
In addition, for new generation products, 3D TLC performance is more acceptable than planar TLC when it comes to long recording sessions. The same picture is with endurance. Instead of sending everything through the SLC cache, as was the case in nCache 2.0, nCache 3.0 allows writing to the TLC space after the SLC segment is full.
Another advantage of nCache 3.0 over nCache 2.0 is the absence of the On Chip Copy feature used in flat TLC matrices. Considering that 3D TLC provides direct access during long-term recording, the additional On Chip Copy function, which was previously responsible for transferring data from the SLC cache to TLC, is no longer needed.
Finally, Western Digital’s nCache 3.0 still uses fixed size SLC cache. Western Digital does not disclose the size of the SLC caches for the WD Black, but our 1TB test units seem to have about 20GB of SLC cache.
As befits a good and modern SSD controller, Western Digital’s new architecture provides several levels of error correction. The first three layers are different LDPC-style error correction codes to handle bit error rates that increase power consumption and reduce performance. The base level of error correction is the LDPC code, controllers with LDPC support increase the probability of correctly reading data from TLC NAND several times. The LDPC error correction code noticeably improves the recognition of data stored in cells compared to the basic BCH error correction mechanism that was used in almost all SSDs before the advent of TLC NAND. This level of error correction is the only one necessary for the drive to operate normally for most of its life. The second and third levels of correction are designed to handle the increased error rate that occurs already in the last years of using the SSD. These codes are completely processed by dedicated hardware on the controller, without using the resources of processor cores.
In order to recover from a serious data loss, which is not subject to the three levels of LDPC, the controller provides data recovery by XOR segments similar to traditional RAID5. Although this is not enough to withstand the «failure» of the entire NAND matrix. ECC error-correcting memory ensures data integrity in the controller SRAM and external DRAM.
AnandTech Drive Test — The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long benchmark that shows how an SSD performs under intensive I/O intensive workloads. The Destroyer has been an integral part of Anandtech’s benchmark suite for almost two years now, and is designed to «destroy all hothouse conditions» by stressing the system in search of the best performing SSD. As in real conditions, the drives were given time to take a break in order to clear the collected garbage collection and clear the cache, only the idle periods were reduced to 25 ms, which is why we did not receive the results in a week. The AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not include running actual applications that generate workloads, so the performance will not change much with changes in CPU and RAM performance, but moving to a newer version of Windows and fresh drivers can affect the “picture” test.
The performance rating for this test is based on the average drive throughput, average I/O latency, and the total power consumed by the drive during the test.
The average data transfer rate of the new WD Black during The Destroyer test is almost as fast as Samsung’s TLC 960 EVO and its new PM981 OEM drive. And if the original WD Black NVMe SSD was clearly one of the slower NVMe drives and performed on par with SATA SSDs during our test, the new WD Black looks pretty competitive among the fastest models.
The average latency on the WD Black is about the same as Samsung’s TLC drives, and the p99 latency results are the best we’ve seen on any flash-based SSD with this capacity.
Average read latencies from WD Black on The Destroyer are as good as any other flash-based SSD we’ve tested. The average write latency is a record low, but the top-end drives from Samsung are clearly faster.
In terms of p99 read latencies, the WD Black performs better, second only to the smaller Intel Optane SSD 900P. But in terms of p99 write latency, WD products are in second place.
The power consumption of the new WD Black has dropped dramatically compared to the previous SSD of the same name. The new model consumes less than half the power of the previous model, which puts it in the top spot, slightly behind the Toshiba XG5.
AnandTech Drive Test – Heavy
Our «Heavy» test, unlike the «Destroyer», is designed to demonstrate the performance of an SSD under heavy loads in a shorter period of time. The total amount of data written during the Heavy test will not fill the disk, which will not bring the SSD to a steady state; test results are significantly affected by drive performance during periods of peak usage. Detailed information about the Heavy test can be found in the corresponding article on AnandTech. This test is run twice, once on a fully erased drive, and once after the drive has been filled with a long write.
The average transfer speeds of the new WD Black SSD in the Heavy test are very close to those of the Samsung 960 EVO. Premium products like the Samsung 960 PRO and Intel Optane SSD 900P are faster, but the WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO NVMe SSDs are pretty much in the high-end segment too.
WD Black’s average and p99 latency scores during Heavy provide some of the best results on any solid state drive based on flash. Also, p99, the WD Black write latency score shows much less performance loss on a full drive than the Toshiba XG5 or Samsung 960 EVO.
WD Black is one of the best drives in terms of average read latency, and the average write latency is slightly higher than the Samsung 960 EVO. The performance loss experienced when testing on a full disk is about the same as most MLC-based disks.
Western Digital’s new controller architecture delivers excellent read QoS with latency of 99th percentile lower than any of the competing flash drives. The 99th percentile of write latency is also at the top of the rankings, but no longer stands out so clearly among speed champions.
The WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO are on par with the Toshiba XG5 and several other NVMe SSDs that have very low power consumption comparable to good SATA SSDs. The total energy used during the Heavy test is slightly higher than the Crucial MX500 and Western Digital’s SATA drives with the same 64L 3D TLC NAND.
AnandTech Drive Test — Light
Our «Light» drive test has relatively more consecutive sessions and lower queue depth than The Destroyer or Heavy, and is the shortest test. It is based mainly on applications that do not rely heavily on the performance of the drive, so its results are more likely to reflect application launch and file download times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the small delays in everyday use, but with downtime reduced to 25ms, it takes less than half an hour to complete. Detailed information about the Light test can be found in the corresponding article on AnandTech. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run twice: on a drive that has been completely wiped, and after the drive has been filled with sequential writes.
When running the test on an empty drive, the average data transfer rate of the WD Black drive is slightly slower than that of the Samsung 960 EVO, and vice versa when the drive is full. The Samsung PM981 is the only drive that has an advantage, although not a huge one, in both cases. Even at its worst performance, the performance of the new WD Black is head and shoulders above the best performance of last year’s WD Black.
WD Black’s average latencies during the Light test are as low as most modern SSDs. Result 9The 9th percentile latency is slightly worse than Samsung’s fastest drives, except that full drive performance is better than the 960 EVO.
There are quite a few SSDs with average read latency close to WD Black, and even low-end NVMe SSDs have sub-millisecond average read latency (according to our Light test). In terms of average write latency, WD Black deservedly shares the first place with the drive from Samsung.
The WD Black shows incredibly low write latency (99th percentile) on the Light test because its SLC cache never fills up. Read latency (99th percentile) does not show such a record value, but still the result on a full drive is very good.
As with the Heavy test, the only NVMe SSD tested that can match the power efficiency of the WD Black is the Toshiba XG5. These drives are much faster than SATA while consuming less power.
Random Reading Test
Our first random read performance test uses very short bursts of operations, one at a time, without a queue. The drives get enough downtime between these «bursts» to provide a total duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is not possible. Each packet has a size of 32 MB, read from random 4 kilobyte blocks, from 16 GB of disk range. The total amount of data is 1 GB.
The WD Black’s random block read performance isn’t breaking records, but it’s still better than last year’s WD Black SSD, and only slightly behind the Samsung 960 EVO.
Our read performance test is similar to the test from the 2015 set: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and energy efficiency in QD1, QD2 and QD4 determine the main test scores. Each queue depth is checked for one minute or 32 GB of transferred data, whichever is faster. After checking the queue depth, the drive is switched off for up to one minute to cool down, so that a large queue depth is not affected by heat buildup. Individual reads still work in 4kB blocks and span the 64GB drive span.
The WD Black’s random read performance is slightly improved over last year’s model. But this is still not enough to catch up with Samsung. In addition, the recently released Intel 760p is slightly ahead of the WD Black.
The WD Black’s power efficiency during random reads is better than any other TLC drive. Its consumption is not much higher than that of a SATA drive, as can be seen from the «tests» carried out.
Western Digital WD Black 1TB (3D NAND)
Intel SSD 760p 512GB
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung 960 PRO 1TB
Patriot Hellfire 480GB
Samsung PM981 1TB
0 OCZ RD 400 1TB
ADATA XPG SX8000 512 GB
Western Digital WD Black 512GB (2D NAN)
SanDisc Extreme PRO 1TB
Toshiba XG5 1TB
Samsung 860 EVO 2TB M. 2
Crucial MX500 1TB
SanDisc Ultra 3D 1TB
Intel Optane 900P 280GB
Western Digital WD Black 7200RPM 1TB
At deeper queue levels, Samsung drives marginally outperform WD Black, but most other drives noticeably lag behind as queue depth increases.
Random write performance
The random write performance test is planned similarly to the read test, but each packet is now only 4 MB, and the total write length is 128 MB. Random writes of 4 KB are distributed over the 16 GB range of the drive, and are issued one by one, without a queue.
Our WD Black sample suddenly delivered a much better random write result than the SanDisk Extreme PRO, even though it’s essentially the same device. Although the indicators of both drives are at the top of the chart.
As with the read test, our constant 4 KB random write test lasts up to one minute, or 32 GB per queue depth, covering 64 GB of disk range. The drive is also allowed up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths, allowing caches to be permanently overwritten and avoiding overheating.
The new WD Black performs like a champion in random write test, well ahead of Samsung’s current retail offerings, and very close to the results of the PM9 OEM drive81, which is the basis for the next generation of Samsung drives. Last year’s WD Black wasn’t much faster than SATA drives.
A complete redesign of the NAND and controller took the WD Black from the bottom of the efficiency chart (where last year’s model is) to the very top, eventually surpassing even the Toshiba XG5 and Samsung 960 PRO.
Western Digital WD Black 1TB (3D NAND)
Intel SSD 760p 512GB
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung 960 PRO 1TB
Patriot Hellfire 480GB
Samsung PM981 1TB
OCZ RD 400 1TB
ADATA XPG SX8000 512 GB
Western Digital WD Black 512 GB (2D NAND)
SanDisc Extreme PRO 1TB0005
Sequential read performance
Our first sequential read performance test uses short bursts of 128 MB executed as operations in 128 KB chunks without queues. The test averages performance over eight bursts for just 1 GB of data read from a disk containing 16 GB of data. The idle time of the drive between each burst is enough for a total duty cycle of 20%.
As we can see, the WD Black sequential read speed is several times faster than last year’s model, but still far from setting records.
The sequential read test uses a queue depth of 1 to 32, with performance and power calculated as the average of QD1, QD2, and QD4. Each queue depth is checked for one minute, or 32 GB (whichever is faster), from a disk containing 64 GB of data.
When testing sequential reads, the Samsung NVMe drives definitely outperform the WD Black.
When it comes to sequential read power efficiency, the WD Black is much closer to the top, trailing only the Samsung 960PRO.
Western Digital WD Black 1TB (3D NAND)
Intel SSD 760p 512GB
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung 960 PRO 1TB
Patriot Hellfire 480GB
Samsung PM981 1TB
OCZ RD 400 1TB
ADATA XPG SX8000 512 GB (0529
SanDisc Extreme PRO 1TB
Toshiba XG5 1TB
Samsung 860 EVO 2TB M. 2
Crucial MX500 1TB
SanDisc Ultra 3D 1TB
Intel Optane 900P 280GB
Western Digital WD Black 7200RPM 1TB
Sequential read performance of the WD Black starts very mediocre in QD1 but steadily rises up to QD16, where it outperforms all but the Optane SSD. The Toshiba XG5 exhibits similar scaling behavior but cannot compete with the new WD Black.
Sequential write performance
The sequential data write performance test is similar to the previous sequential read test. Each package writes 128 MB of data as 128 KB operations released in QD1, for a total of 1 GB of data written to a disc containing 16 GB of data.
As with the random write test, our twin drives show a surprising difference in sequential write speeds. WD SanDisk Extreme shares second place with Samsung 960 EVO, while the WD Black is on par with the Samsung PM981 (which replaced the 960 Evo, with a write speed increase of about 40% compared to the SSD 960 Evo).
The long sequential write test is structured identically to the sequential read test, except for the direction of data transfer. The queue depth varies from 1 to 32, and each depth is checked for one minute or 32 GB, after which there is a minute of downtime, allotted for the correct development of the garbage collection technology, such a break gives the drive a chance to cool down. The test is limited to the 64 GB range of the drive.
The WD Black’s continuous sequential write performance isn’t top notch, but it’s well ahead of all but the best drives from Samsung and Intel. The WD Black is almost twice as fast as the Toshiba XG5, which uses essentially the same flash.
While the tested product didn’t deliver top-end sequential write performance, the WD Black is the clear winner in terms of energy efficiency. With a power consumption of just over 4 watts, it does not lack power at all. So much work has been done in this direction that the drive was able to surpass all competitors in testing efficiency.
Western Digital WD Black 1TB (3D NAND)
Intel SSD 760p 512GB
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung 960 PRO 1TB
Patriot Hellfire 480GB
Samsung PM981 1TB
OCZ RD 400 1TB
ADATA XPG SX8000 512 GB (0529
SanDisc Extreme PRO 1TB
Toshiba XG5 1TB
Samsung 860 EVO 2TB M.2
Crucial MX500 1TB
SanDisc Ultra 3D 1TB
Intel Optane 900P 280GB
Western Digital WD Black 7200RPM 1TB
The WD Black’s sequential write speed is fairly stable over a wide range of queue depths, and shows a slight increase from QD1 to QD2, with no signs of degradation due to excessive garbage collection after the SLC cache is full.
Mixed random performance
The Mixed Random Reads and Writes test consists of mixes that range from pure reads to pure writes in 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute, or 32 GB of data transferred. Testing is done with a queue depth of 4 and is limited to a 64 GB drive range. Between mixes, the drive is idle for up to one minute, so that the total duty cycle is 50%.
The WD Black has excellent mixed random I/O performance, but it’s still slower than Samsung’s best drives, but the Optane SSD is in a completely different league.
The WD Black’s power efficiency in a mixed random I/O test is roughly equal to the Samsung 960 PRO, and slightly behind the Optane SSD, despite the huge difference in absolute performance levels.
Western Digital WD Black 1TB (3D NAND)
Intel SSD 760p 512GB
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung 960 PRO 1TB
Patriot Hellfire 480GB
Samsung PM981 1TB
OCZ RD 400 1TB
ADATA XPG SX8000 512 GB
Western Digital WD Black 512GB (2D NAND)
SANDISC Extreme Pro 1TB
0 TOSHIBA XG5 1TB
Samsung 860 EVO 2TB M. 2
CRUCIAL MX500 1TB
0003
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes, unlike the previous I/O test, performs sequential accesses of 128 KB in size (instead of 4 KB in random places), and is also carried out at a queue depth of 1. The range of tested mixes has not changed, the timing and limits on data transmission are the same as described above.
WD Black’s mixed sequential workload performance is surprisingly good, just barely outperforming the Optane SSD, far outperforming other flash drives.
WD Black consumes about the same power as other SSDs during the mixed sequential test, which, combined with excellent performance, leads the drive to the energy efficiency leader.
Western Digital WD Black 1TB (3D NAND)
Intel SSD 760p 512GB
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB
Samsung 960 PRO 1TB
Patriot Hellfire 480GB
Samsung PM981 1TB
OCZ RD 400 1TB
ADATA XPG SX8000 512 GB
Western Digital WD Black 512GB (2D NAND)
SanDisc Extreme PRO 1TB
TOSHIBA XG5 1TB
SAMSUNG 860 EVO 2TB M. 2
Crucial 1TB
529
Intel Optane 900P 280GB
Western Digital WD Black 7200RPM 1TB
The WD Black performance graph in a mixed sequential test looks quite strange. Many drives show a concave curve with peak performance at both ends of the test when the workload is either pure write or read only, and worst performance in the middle of the test. On the contrary, the WD Black’s performance chart starts from the bottom positions, but quickly grows during the first half of the test, and holds the maximum value throughout the second half.
Energy management
In the real world, the load mode of home drives leaves SSDs idle most of the time. This means that the active power measurements presented earlier in this review only show part of how to determine the quality of a drive when using battery power. In light usage, an SSD’s power efficiency is determined by how much it can conserve power while idle.
SATA SSDs are tested with SATA power management disabled to measure their active standby consumption, and further evaluate deep standby consumption and wake latency. Our test bench, like any desktop system, cannot run the deepest DevSleep state of inactivity (the lowest power consumption mode).
Idle consumption management for NVMe SSDs is much more difficult than for SATA SSDs. NVMe SSDs have different idle states, they differ from each other in terms of power consumption and delays that occur when a component returns to an active state. The WD Black drive supports APST (Autonomous Power State Change).
We measure idle consumption in two ways. Active standby is a typical desktop PC that does not use any of the advanced PCIe or NVMe power saving features and the drive is immediately ready to process new commands. Standby power consumption is measured with Power Status L1. 2 PCIe enabled and NVMe APST enabled.
Like most NVMe SSDs, the WD Black has a fairly high standby consumption — that’s the price of supporting an active PCIe 3×4 bus. Active standby consumption is slightly higher than the previous WD Black SSD, but in line with drives from Samsung, Toshiba, and Phison.
Enabling all advanced PCIe and NVMe power management features does not have the desired effect on the WD Black drive under test. Consumption is reduced by only half (even less), and a «recession» was expected at least by an order of magnitude. The previous WD Black SSD used aggressive power management whether or not the operating system requested it. The new WD Black didn’t seem to be able to save much power on our desktop bench, no matter how much power the system was asking for. We will be working with Western Digital to try and determine the cause of this abnormal behavior. The WD Black isn’t the only NVMe drive that’s had power management issues out of the box, Intel and Samsung have been able to create drives that deliver very low standby consumption as we’ve seen in our testing.
Since the WD Black is obviously not able to use all the power management features on our bench, it is not surprising that its wake-up latency is quite low. It’s not the minimum ~15µs that we see with drives that don’t try to conserve power at all, but ~230µs is still a very fast wakeup time.
Output
From last year’s tests, we learned about Western Digital’s and Toshiba’s XG5 SATA drives, where 64-layer 3D-TLC showed a huge leap over planar NAND, and was arguably the fastest and most energy efficient TLC NAND. It is now obvious that these disks have not even been tried to use the full capabilities of the new flash. With the new controller on board, the Western Digital BiCS 3 TLC sparkles like a diamond. The new WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO are undeniably high quality NVMe SSDs that are Samsung Level 960 EVO, and sometimes even surpass 960 PRO.
Apart from a few disappointing points in WD Black’s benchmark results, it’s good to see that even when the drive isn’t in first or second place, it’s head and shoulders above low-end NVMe drives. The two biggest problems are a poor start in the sequential read test, and a number of NVMe power management bugs that may be resolved over time. Many NVMe drives are starting to «behave weird» when it comes to idle power management, you will agree, a stark contrast to the almost universal and flawless support among SATA drives, at least for the sleep state, as well as DevSleep (which cannot be used on desktop computers).
The WD Black’s power efficiency under load is excellent, it’s safe to say that the Western Digital NVMe controller is not a power waster. The WD Black unexpectedly outperformed our expectations in our benchmarks, especially during the mixed sequential I/O test, with none of the drives we tested could match.
Samsung dominated the early NVMe SSD race and still holds the lead. During this time, many brands have tried to introduce high performance NVMe SSDs with planar NAND, or even failed first generation Intel/Micron 3D NAND. Failed attempts include last year’s original WD Black NVMe SSD, which used 15nm planar TLC and barely outperformed a decent SATA drive.
MSRP (suggested retail price) WD Black is approximately the same as the current retail prices for the Samsung 960 EVO, which is the direct competitor of the tested device. None of these drives offer a clear performance advantage at 1TB, the WD Black has a modest advantage in terms of energy efficiency (despite the identified problems in the idle state). The Intel 760p ended up in this price range, but it’s clearly uncompetitive.
Plextor M9Pe became available to customers after the official launch earlier this year. It’s got a Toshiba 64L TLC and a Marvell controller, and it’s exactly what the new WD Black could be without the introduction of Western Digital’s own internal controller. We’ll have preliminary results for the M9Pe soon.
Western Digital’s years of hard work in developing 3D-NAND and their new NVMe controller has paid off. They deserve to be in the big leagues again, and their latest SATA SSDs are also doing well. This year, the SSD market has some serious competition at almost every price point.
Thank you for staying with us. Do you like our articles? Want to see more interesting content? Support us by placing an order or recommending to your friends, 30% discount for Habr users on a unique analogue of entry-level servers that we created for you: The whole truth about VPS (KVM) E5-2650 v4 (6 Cores) 10GB DDR4 240GB SSD 1Gbps from $20 or how to share a server? (available with RAID1 and RAID10, up to 24 cores and up to 40GB DDR4).
Dell R730xd 2 times cheaper? Only here 2 x Intel Dodeca-Core Xeon E5-2650v4 128GB DDR4 6x480GB SSD 1Gbps 100 TV from $249 in the Netherlands and USA! Read about How to Build Infrastructure Corp. class with the use of Dell R730xd E5-2650 v4 servers worth 9,000 euros for a penny?
Review of the budget SANDISK Plus 120 GB SSD (SDSSDA-120G-G27)
Greetings to all readers of this review, and today we will once again talk about one of the budget SSD drives, which recently appeared on the market. Today we will talk about SANDISK Plus 120 GB (SDSSDA-120G-G27) 3D NAND TLC Solid State Drive.
Sandisk has long been known to the Russian user, not only in the field of computer technology, but also in the photo environment. Sandisk has been in the memory business for a long time, and since the advent of solid-state drives, it has become actively involved in them. Moreover, in 2015, Sandisk was bought by the larger and rapidly developing WD (Western Digital) hard drive market. For WD to grow even more, it was necessary to start into solid state drives, and since opportunities allowed, the easiest way was to buy a company that manufactures solid state drives. Of course, WD began production of “its” SSD drives at Sandisk facilities, but it also did not “kill” the brand and Sandisk solid-state drives can still be found on the shelves. So let’s talk about the new product and make a detailed review of this SSD …
Video review on SANDISK Plus 120GB SSD (SDSSDA-120G-G27)
I bought this SSD here, you will find a huge selection of SSDs at great prices there. But you can buy it wherever you want.
Here you can always watch the video version of the review or read in more detail …
Where to buy?
SANDISK Plus 120 GB Drive Specifications (SDSSDA-120G-G27)
Memory Capacity | 120 GB |
Sequential Read Speed (Max) | 530 MB/s |
Sequential write speed (max.) | 310 MB/s |
Dimensions | 2.75″ x 3.96″ x 0.28″ in. (69.85 mm x 100.5 mm x 7.0 mm) | |
Interface | SATA Revision 3.0 (6Gb/s) | |
Operating temperature | 0 to 70ºC | |
Impact resistance | Impact resistance up to 1500 G | |
Vibration resistance | 5 G(RMS), 10-2000 Hz / 4. 9 G(RMS), 7-800 Hz |
There is no mention of any types of memory on the manufacturer’s website, so you have to look for information yourself. And as I managed to find out, this drive is based on 3D NAND memory and TLC chips. And this means that not expensive TLC chips are used here, but with an extended service life due to 3D NAND memory technology.
Packaging and Contents
SanDisk’s SSD Plus series has been the most budget-friendly of all models since its inception, but this is precisely what allowed these drives to be widely sold in the solid state drive market. Because first of all, the consumer is concerned about the price, and only then the characteristics and properties. The Sandisk Plus SSD (SDSSDA-120G-G27), like its predecessor (SDSSDA-120G-G26), comes in exactly the same packaging. By the way, the models differ only in the last digit. Outwardly, you can’t even tell the difference. The speeds are identical and all text is the same.
At the top of the cardboard blister, we see the main slogans and texts about this solid state drive — up to twenty times faster than a regular hard drive (with an asterisk, of course), the SanDisk brand is indicated and the SSD Plus series is indicated in even larger font, we are also told that this drive is much faster than hard drives. The volume of our drive is 120 Gb (again with an asterisk, because the real volume is less) and the read speed is up to 530 MB / sec. We will definitely check this… By the way, there is a hole in the package so that you can hang the drive in stores before selling it.
At the bottom of the carton, we immediately see our SSD drive, which is in transparent plastic. And so we can see it from all sides, except for the back, which is hidden behind the cardboard, the back of the package. The drive duplicates the SSD Plus drive series and manufacturer SanDisk. There is nothing else special on the packaging. But the reverse side of the cardboard blister carries a lot of information in small print . .. There is a description of the drive in nine languages and, of course, it was not without Russian. Here the manufacturer assures us about the reliability and speed of the solid state drive (no wonder It’s an SSD drive. We are also recommended to download the proprietary SanDisk Dashboard utility from the manufacturer’s website, which can update the drive’s firmware and show performance.
But below there is a lot of small print, here are the decoding of the stars on the front side of the box by the volume of the drive and a comparison in terms of speeds with hard drives. At the bottom of the package of the Sandisk Plus 120 GB drive there is a cutout with a view of the serial number of the device and a barcode. 3 year limited warranty included. All major certifications are present. There is a full model name with the SDSSDA-120G-G27 barcode and the country of manufacture is indicated — Do not try to read all this small text and spoil your eyesight. Malaysia. Nothing more interesting.
In order to open the SANDISK Plus 120 GB SSD (SDSSDA-120G-G27), we are advised to cut off the top of the package and thus remove the drive.
But I make it even easier, just «break» the cardboard blister in the middle and get access to the SSD drive. Thus, no additional devices (such as scissors) are needed when opening, and the package will still fly into the trash can … Inside we will find our SSD drive in the same transparent plastic box that is sealed in cardboard. On the back of the drive, instructions are neatly packed. The instructions and warranty obligations are made on a fairly large sheet of paper, which is folded to the size of the drive. Also, the information in the instructions is in different languages. Here we are warned about the importance of reading this instruction before use …
Product Safety and Use Instructions
Do not touch the SanDisk SSD connector. When using a SanDisk SSD, hold the edge or chassis. Do not remove, damage or cover product labels. Removing these labels will void the warranty (which is really important) Make sure the SanDisk SSD does not exceed the maximum possible operating temperature (how can we find out). Be careful when removing a SanDisk SSD from a desktop or laptop computer as the device may be hot.
Do not expose the SanDisk SSD to moisture (sink, bath, shower, rain, or other sources of moisture). Any electronic device exposed to moisture can cause electric shock. Do not disassemble, deform, short, or heat the SanDisk SSD. Doing so may result in fire, injury, burns, or other hazards.
Next, we are advised to use the chassis or computer manufacturer’s instructions for installing the SanDisk SSD and provide links with instructions. There are also links to technical support for the device, disposal instructions and a three-year warranty.
Appearance
The drive is housed in a black plastic case with right angles. Medium quality plastic (but not as cheap as Smartbuy Splash). Most of the front side of the Sandisk Plus SSD drive is occupied by a sticker, which we already saw through the transparent plastic packaging. The manufacturer Sandisk and the SSD Plus series are listed here.
But there is more information on the reverse side. Here, and the manufacturer, and the full model of the SDSSDA-120G-G27 drive, and the volume of 120 GB. There is also information on the power supply of the device — +5.0 VDC (volts) 1.0 Amperes. Also written about the loss of warranty if the sticker is removed, made in Malaysia. There are international certification badges, as well as a serial number (which we already saw through the hole in the package). There is a bright yellow sticker on the drive that must be removed prior to installation as it covers the SATA connectors of the drive. And due to the fact that the case of our drive is completely made of plastic, the mounting holes are made in the form of washers that are soldered directly into the case, which means you should not tighten the screws too much during installation. Otherwise, if the washer in the case breaks, we immediately lose the three-year warranty. The drive has standard SATA connectors — SATA III (6 Gb/sec) interface and SATA power. corners, despite the average quality plastic, looks decent. And now it’s time to move on to the most interesting, to the tests of the SANDISK Plus 120 GB SSD (SDSSDA-120G-G27)
You shouldn’t have any problems with the installation. I connected it for tests, then I did not thoroughly mount our drive in the case. There are no moving parts in the drive, so you can not be afraid of such an arrangement …
Tests
First, using the SSD Life Pro program, we will find out brief characteristics … The model of the SANDISK SSD Plus 120Gb drive is completely determined (this tells us that in firmware has this information, unlike other cheap drives), Uptime, as the amount of data transferred is not supported, but we have in our hands the cheapest drive from SanDisk. The drive was turned on only 2 times (and one is similar to ours), and this is an excellent indicator. TRIM is supported and enabled. Well, there is nothing else here …
Next, run the SSD-Z utility to find out if it will determine the type of memory and controller that is installed in the drive. But unfortunately, this information is hidden from the drive.
According to SMART, there are no deviations and we have a completely new drive. And now the most interesting thing. This is a speed test using the Crystal Disk Mark utility. And the results are as follows…
- The read speed was 317 MB/s (530 MB/s was claimed)
- Write speed was 248 MB/s (310 MB/s was claimed)
And this is where everything falls into place. On the previous revision SanDisk SSD PLUS (SDSSDA-120G-G26), there were no such problems. The new drive had a reading speed deviation of more than 200 MB / s, and a write speed of 60 MB / s, which is very bad. To be honest, I did not expect such results. Consequently, the drives are all the cheapest and simplest. I did not expect such a strong deviation from SanDisk. Next, I decided to check how the SANDISK Plus 120 GB drive (SDSSDA-120G-G27) copes with copying large amounts of data. For example, from an already installed SSD disk (Samsung 850 EVO 240 Gb M.2), I copied data (video files) with a total volume of 26 GB to our hero and began to observe. As you can see in the picture, the speed drops sharply after copying about 2 gigabytes of data. And this means that the drive has a buffer that quickly overflows. Therefore, the drive copes very poorly with large amounts of data and this is disappointing, although in practice a simple user rarely encounters such a thing …
Results
To be honest, I am very unhappy with the test results of the SANDISK Plus 120 GB SSD (SDSSDA-120G-G27). The manufacturer has not done any work on the drive, except for the transition to 3D TLC memory. Moreover, the real data transfer rates have become much worse and now differ significantly from those declared by the manufacturer. I would like to believe that this is only a problem with the 120 GB version, but somehow I don’t feel like buying a SANDISK Plus 240 GB drive .