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
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 23, 2012 - link
Ad hominem much?Plenty of buyers would be interested in knowing that the 830, for instance, tops the charts in terms of power usage under load, particularly given the fact that Samsung's "full specs" advertised number is impossibly low.
People have been tricked by this, which is exactly why Samsung publishes that low number.
Ever heard of laptop battery life? What about heat? I suppose not.
Kristian Vättö - Saturday, December 22, 2012 - link
The figures Samsung reports are with Device Initiated Power Management (DIPM) enabled. That's a feature that is usually only found on laptops but it can be added to desktop systems as well.With DIPM disabled, Samsung rates the idle power at 0.349W, which supports our figures (we got 0.31W).
The same goes for active power, Samsung rates it at 3.55W (sequential write) and 2.87W (4KB random write QD32). The 0.069W figure comes from the average power draw using Mobile Mark 2007, which is something we don't use.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 23, 2012 - link
So, in a laptop, the load power for the 830 amazingly plummets from, what 5+ watts, to .13 watts?That's really amazing. I guess the next thing to ask is why these amazing results aren't part of the published charts.
Cold Fussion - Saturday, December 22, 2012 - link
I think the power consumption tests are particularly useless. How come you don't test power consumption under some typical workload and heavy workload so we can see how much energy they use?Kristian Vättö - Sunday, December 23, 2012 - link
Because we don't have the equipment for that. With a standard multimeter we can only record the average peak current, so we have to use an IOmeter test for each number (recording the peak while running e.g. Heavy suite would be useless).Good power measurement equipment can cost thousands of dollars. Ultimately the decision is up to Anand but I don't think he is willing to spend that much money on just one test, especially when it can somewhat be tested with a standard multimeter. Besides, desktop users don't usually care about the power consumption at all, so that is another reason why such investment might not be the most worthwhile.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 23, 2012 - link
And we know only desktop users buy SSDs. No one ever buys them for laptops.lmcd - Monday, December 24, 2012 - link
Howabout you buy the equipment for them, if it's such a great investment?Cold Fussion - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link
That line of thinking is flawed. If you're only catering to desktop users, why even present the power consumption figures at all? The 3-5w maximum power consumption of an SSD which will largely be idle is not at all significant compared to the 75 watts the cpu is pulling while gaming or the 150watts the gpu is pulling.The tests as they are server no real purpose. It would be like trying to measure power-efficiency of a cpu purely by it's maximum power consumption. I don't believe a basic datalogger is going to run into the 1000s.
Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link
I didn't say we only cater desktop users, but the fact is that some of our readers are desktop users and hence don't care about the power consumption tests. It's harder to justify buying expensive equipment when some will not be interested in the tests.Don't get me wrong, I would buy the equipment in a heartbeat if someone gave me the money. However, I'm not the one pulling the strings on that. If you have suggestions on affordable dataloggers, feel free to post them. All I know is that the tool that was used in the Clover Trail efficiency article costs around $3000.
Cold Fussion - Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - link
But it doesn't cater to mobile users because the data provided is simply not of any real use. I can go to my local retail electronics store and buy a data-logging multimeter for $150-$250 AUD, I am almost certain that you can purchase one cheaper than that in the US from a retail outlet or online.