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
infoilrator - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Better in what way?Perceived, benchmark, or price?
Raid0 with another Kingston might be the most cost effective.
The SAMSUNG 840 certainly offers a lot for the price
celestialgrave - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Guess I'll be sticking with my Agility 3 a while longer in the laptop, until someone releases a more frugal powered ssd with good performance.lmcd - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link
... Samsung 840 sips. Doesn't Sandforce take a lot of power?lmcd - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link
Whoops, nvmwell, OCZ 4 series does better than 3 series, either way. And Samsung's results may be faked, as per Oxford Guy's comments.
pattycake0147 - Thursday, December 20, 2012 - link
Why did you choose different scales on the graphs for the final set of consistency graphs? Some top at 50,000 iops and others top at 40,000 iops this makes looking at comparisons more difficult. Even the same drive (840 Pro) has a different scale for the standard and 25% OP graphs.Kristian Vättö - Friday, December 21, 2012 - link
I was aware of this. At first 40K IOPS was enough but when we started including 25% OP tests, many SSDs managed over 40K IOPS so it was obvious that the scale had to be extended. I'll try to make all graphs 50K IOPS for the next review - Anand has done most of the tests so I couldn't create new graphs for this one.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 21, 2012 - link
Anandtech should expose Samsung's lies, regarding the load power usage of their SSDs.It certainly does not here:
"the 840 Pro boasts incredibly low power consumption both at idle and under load"
Perhaps, but the actual usage is much higher than Samsung's packaging claim.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6328/samsung-ssd-840...
Or here:
"Until we get lower capacity drives it's impossible to tell how much the power consumption story will change."
How convenient it was for Samsung to only provide a 512 GB unit.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4863/the-samsung-ssd...
Let's see what Samsung claims with their "full specs" page:
http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/...
.13W — miraculous!
And, let's see what Samsung provided Newegg for its 512 GB drive, eh?
Power consumption idle: .008W
Power consumption load: .13W
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
People have routinely cited Samsung's "efficient" design, citing these false numbers, in comparisons with other drives. This has to stop. Anandtech, you have a responsibility to report on this, not cover for them.
Let's see what the 840 512's "full specs" are, eh?
http://www.samsung.com/us/computer/memory-storage/...
Well, Samsung certainly learned their lesson thanks to Anandtech. They've raised the power consumption to .15W!
Oxford Guy - Friday, December 21, 2012 - link
Oh, and let's take a look at the numbers Samsung provided Newegg for the 512 GB 840, shall we?power consumption idle: 0.054W
power consumption load: 0.069W
Oxford Guy - Friday, December 21, 2012 - link
OCZ has felt heat from Anandtech over its sleazy practice of changing the NAND of its drives from 32-bit to 64-bit without changing the specs on the packaging.Why not Samsung? The 830 has the highest power consumption in this latest roundup, and yet did Anandtech compare the claimed .13W power usage to the actual power usage?
"Until we get lower capacity drives it's impossible to tell how much the power consumption story will change."
How about "This 512 GB drive uses vastly more power than Samsung claims it does. We are going to find out just how much the lower-capacity drives use and write a story about these serious discrepancies."?
That would have been more appropriate.
derGhostrider - Saturday, December 22, 2012 - link
What is your problem "Oxford Guy"?Almost noone cares about power consumption of 1W or 3W or 0.15W for a SSD, except when you try to build an ultra durable ultra-book or tablet PC.
But even then you have to consider that the Samsung 840 pro has the lowest "disk busy time" of all SSDs tested so far.
So it uses more power during its active time but it shortens this time to a minimum.
Take a calculator! It won't be that bad compared to others that use less power but twice as long.
And, if you really care about this little secondary detail that much: Take another SSD that offers the lowest overall power consumption. It won't be that fast but it will satisfy your needs.
Your postings look like a senseless try of bashing the best SSD on the (consumer) market for an almost unimportant little detail. And: You seem to know about it. So make your decision based on your knowledge but don't tripple post just to arouse the image of an issue that might be important.