![]() ![]() ![]() The SLC cache recouped roughly 150GB of capacity in each recovery round (ranging from 30 seconds to 30 minutes). This performance gave it a solid empty-to-fill time, ranking fourth in the comparison pool. ![]() As a result, Crucial’s 2TB P5 Plus absorbed 200GB of data before degrading in performance from roughly 5.1 GBps down to 1.8 GBps for the remainder of the test. With double the capacity of the 1TB model, the 2TB P5 Plus comes with a dynamic SLC cache that measures twice as large. We also monitor cache recovery via multiple idle rounds. We use iometer to hammer the SSD with sequential writes for 15 minutes to measure both the size of the write cache and performance after the cache is saturated. Unfortunately, sustained write speeds can suffer tremendously once the workload spills outside the cache and into the "native" TLC or QLC flash. Most SSDs implement a write cache, which is a fast area of (usually) pseudo-SLC programmed flash that absorbs incoming data. Official write specifications are only part of the performance picture. Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery In fact, the P5 Plus is only faster than the PCIe Gen3-based P5 in this test. Although the P5 Plus delivered some of the fastest PCMark 10 results we have seen, it delivered some of the slowest 4KB random read/write times. While the Phison E18-equipped competitors such as the KC3000 and Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus set the bar and delivered clean performance scaling across all our tested block sizes, Crucial’s P5 Plus was less consistent, and its write performance landed between the WD Black SN850 and Samsung 980 Pro. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |