Corsair Neutron & Neutron GTX: All Capacities Tested
by Kristian Vättö on December 19, 2012 1:10 PM ESTFinal Words
The 480GB Neutron GTX didn't reveal any surprises as its performance is for the most part the same as what the 240GB model provides. It can't challenge Samsung's SSD 840 or OCZ's Vector but when compared with for instance Plextor M5 Pro and high-end SandForce SSDs, it's a competitive drive. Both Neutron drives are also among the more consistent performers in torture testing.
If we look at the pricing, both the Neutron and Neutron GTX are actually pretty compelling because the 256GB 840 Pro or Vector will cost you $35~$45 more and the difference can be over $100 as we move to higher capacities. The Neutron GTX is priced very similarly to Plextor's M5 Pro and they also share performance characteristics as well as 5-year warranty.
The 120GB Neutron GTX is a more interesting case. While it has half the NAND of the 240GB model, it can really hold up in the tests against the bigger capacities and currently it's the fastest 120/128GB SSD we have tested. I should note that we don't have 128GB samples of Samsung SSD 840 Pro or OCZ Vector yet, so that title may be only temporary but nevertheless its performance is impressive for such a small drive.
The same can't be said about the 120GB Neutron as its performance is more along the lines of other 120/128GB SSDs such as Crucial m4 and Corsair Force GT, but that was expected since it's aimed at the mainstream market and is also priced as such.
What the Neutron shows is that IO consistency does not have to be an enterprise-only feature—it's something that anyone can have if the manufacturer focuses on it. Only SandForce based SSDs manage to offer IO consistency anywhere near the Neutron and even then the Neutron takes the lead when ~30 minutes of 4KB random writes has been surpassed (though it's very unlikely for consumers to stress the SSD that much). Sure partially the reason for Neutron's IO consistency is its extra OP space compared to most of the other consumer SSD, but I don't believe anyone will leave out the Neutron because it offers slightly less space. We have always recommended keeping 20% or so of the SSD empty anyway and all that the extra OP really does is to make sure you can't fill the SSD enough to get into serious performance troubles. I think IO consistency is an area where manufacturers should focus more, even if it means assigning a bit more NAND for OP. Corsair and LAMD have shown that it's do-able and now others should take the hint and follow up.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
nedjinski - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
I wish you could somehow get Mushkin SSD's into the mix :)Kristian Vättö - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
I've asked Mushkin for review samples several times but for some unknown reason, they have never sent us any. And yes, I've tried emailing them again and again but I haven't gotten any replies...Mumrik - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
That's weirdly worrying.AT isn't exactly a small hardware-grabbing site.
ICBM - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
It was mentioned that the LAMD controller isn't in the same class as Vector/840Pro, however it seems like it only loses a couple of benchmarks. The others it is winning or just slightly behind. So is it really not up to par with OCZ and Samsung? Would the average user, heck scratch that. Would the most avid enthusiast know the difference between an 840 Pro and a Neutron GTX running in their system?Beenthere - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
In actual use no one is likely to be able to tell the difference in performance between a SATA 2 drive compared to a SATA 3, let alone between the recent crop of SATA 3 SSDs.People should do their homework before jumping in to an SSD. If you chose to go forward at least you'll know which drives to definitely avoid and which ones are the cheapest. Don't assume because an SSD is a familair brand name that it is either reliable nor fully compatible because you may be in for quite a rude awakening. It's foolish to pay more based on some perceived benefit in benchmarks when it means nothing in actual use.
Denithor - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
This is very true.I switched from a 120GB Intel 320 (SATA 2) to a 180GB Intel 330 (SATA 3) and the only difference I could see/feel was the increased capacity of the new drive. Boot times were nearly identical, apps open at the same speeds, no discernible improvement from the upgrade.
hammer256 - Wednesday, December 19, 2012 - link
Those consistency results are pretty remarkable. From newegg reviews, however, it appears to have a bimodal distribution of 5's and 1's, but the sample size is pretty small. Still, I wonder how good their QC is...skytrench - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Not really, the consistency tests on a 100% full and 100% fragmented drive with nonstop 4k random writes, doesn't reflect reality. You wouldn't even allow your ZFS filesystem to reach that state! Some better test should be devised.nushydude - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
which SSD to get strictly for OS, applications and games? i think Neutron GTX is too much because i won't be writing much data. a Samsung 840 should suffice? i want better performance than a 120GB Kingston HyperX (original one) btw.nathanddrews - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Simple, use the light workload storage benchmarks and select any drive that performs better than your current SSD.I'll even be really nice and provide you with a link. :-)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/269