The SanDisk X400 1TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on May 6, 2016 9:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, which is filled before the test starts. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The X400's random read performance is almost as good as the Samsung 850 EVO and much better than the other planar TLC drives. This is a significant accomplishment, as random reads are often the slowest operation for TLC drives and hard to improve with caching.
The X400's mid-range random read performance is achieved with relatively low power consumption, making it surprisingly efficient for a TLC drive.
 |
|||||||||
At the highest queue depths the X400 can't quite reach the limits of the fastest drives, but overall the scaling of both performance and power usage are reasonable for a mid-range SATA drive.
Random Write Performance
The random write test writes 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
The X400's low queue depth random write speeds fall in the middle of the gap between the slowest MLC drive and the rest of the planar TLC drives.
The X400's power consumption is low, but with performance well behind any MLC drive the efficiency is only better than the other planar TLC drives.
 |
|||||||||
The SanDisk X400's random write speeds show almost no scaling with increased queue depths, behavior that is typical of low-end TLC drives. The QD1 performance is as good as any SATA drive and while the OCZ Trion 150 hits great speeds at QD16 and QD32, the SanDisk X400 is clearly faster for the more realistic lower queue depths.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Margalus - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
It uses less power than some, and is priced lower. But it seems performance is severely lacking..jabber - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
This just shows what a fantastic budget SSD the BX100 was. Crucial were stupid to dump it.Mixal11 - Sunday, May 8, 2016 - link
Exactly, for me it's v300 for low end desktop, BX100 for laptops (hard to get over time) and Sandisk Extreme Pro or 850 Pro for high end. I avoid TLC, because of experience with Dell Samsung 841oem. Who knows if I can read data from it after year or two. TLC drives are great to reduce ssd prices.jabber - Sunday, May 8, 2016 - link
Yeah everyone moaned about the V300's back in the day but they are perfect SSDs for putting in SATA II kit as they push 285+MBps all day long...plus they are the cheapest you can buy usually. Also I have bought dozens of them and not one has yet failed. They are a solid tough little SSD. I shall be sorry when they go.jhh - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
I wonder if they have included any of the increased endurance technology from their Smart Storage (formerly part of Smart Modular) acquisition. The idea behind the technology was that most cells didn't need full current to program, and when programmed with less than full current, that the cell would allow more write/erase cycles.Michael Bay - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
Goddamn it, one more terabyte.Just one.
Samus - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
I think if I were shopping for a TLC drive I'd stick with Sandisk too. I haven't had any issues with their Ultra II's, although many people have. I have, however, had two ADATA SP550's fail (a 120GB and 240GB) one during a power failure in a laptop (BSOD) which a secure erase recovered usability of the drive, and another within an hour of installation - cloning about 100GB of data to it killed it an no longer detects by BIOS.I have 5 or so other SP550's in the field running fine though, but none of them have suffered the "abuse" of the above cases.
I have dozens of Mushkin drives out there, even ECO2's, all running incredibly well. I have a few ECO3 TLC drives in house about to go out, but I've been avoiding them because the ECO2 is still available.
On a side note, I still have 840EVO's coming in at least bi-weekly with basically unusable performance. Samsung is hell to deal with for RMA (a stark contrast to, say, OCZ that actually sends you an advanced replacement!) and nothing I can do revives performance in these drives. Secure erase, fill and trim, etc, nothing works. Even after a fresh OS install they read at half the speed they write. It's crazy, slower than a 2.5" hard disk.
ladder_to_heaven - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
Win 8.1 - STILL? -For the love of god WHY?
Billy Tallis - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
Switching to Windows 10 would require re-testing a lot of drives, monopolizing the testbed for a month. It'll probably happen at some point this year, but I'll need to put together a second system for it (hopefully a Skylake system with working PCIe power management).jabber - Saturday, May 7, 2016 - link
Yeah no rush, after all 85% of 10's code is...8.1.