The SanDisk X400 1TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on May 6, 2016 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
The SanDisk X400 is intended to be a high-end TLC SSD, and there aren't many of those to compare against. The Samsung 850 EVO is without question the fastest SATA SSD using TLC NAND, and for the most part it ranks as a high-end drive even when compared with SATA SSDs in general, not just drives with TLC NAND. Aside from that, most TLC SSDs are value-oriented SSDs that sacrifice much to reach the lowest possible prices. The SanDisk X400 is not one of those products.
On almost every test the SanDisk X400 is considerably faster than the next fastest drive with planar TLC NAND. The few occasions where the OCZ Trion 150 beats the SanDisk X400, in write performance, they are balanced by several tests where the X400 ties or beats MLC drives like the Crucial MX200 or OCZ Vector 180. The only notable performance weakness is sequential write speed, but this is not a severe handicap.
In addition to raising the bar for planar TLC performance, the SanDisk X400 sets a new standard for power efficiency of drives using TLC NAND. It routinely ties or beats at least a few MLC SSDs for power efficiency, especially when its performance is not lagging far behind.
With solid performance and power efficiency and a 5-year warranty on a generous write endurance rating, the SanDisk X400 has every right to ask a higher price than any other planar TLC SSD. The warranty and endurance rating also exceed that of some low-end MLC drives that don't have much performance advantage over the X400.
At the moment the SanDisk X400 is priced at or below the OCZ Trion 150 for most capacities, especially the 512GB that is one of the cheapest SSDs in its capacity class. At 1TB perhaps the most interesting comparison is against the Mushkin Reactor, still by far the cheapest 1TB MLC SSD. The Reactor is about $25 cheaper but only has a 3-year warranty and less than half the write endurance rating. Supply of the Crucial MX200 is drying up in advance of the MX300 launch, so there are not a lot of MLC drives priced close to the X400. Overall the X400 is a reasonable step up from the cheapest budget SSDs and priced far enough below drives like the Samsung 850 EVO to not be overshadowed.
| SSD Price Comparison | ||||
| Drive | 960GB 1TB |
480GB 512GB |
240GB 256GB |
120GB 128GB |
| OCZ Trion 150 | $243.49 | $129.98 | $59.99 | $43.74 |
| SanDisk Ultra II | $225.25 | $120.99 | $73.48 | $54.60 |
| SanDisk X400 | $244.95 | $113.99 | $78.93 | $46.99 |
| SanDisk Extreme Pro | $348.99 | $184.20 | $108.00 | |
| Crucial MX200 | Sold Out | $139.00 | $81.72 | |
| PNY CS2211 | $289.99 | $139.99 | $69.99 | |
| Mushkin Reactor | $219.99 | $149.99 | $79.99 | |
| Samsung 850 EVO | $324.99 | $149.99 | $90.19 | $66.75 |
It is refreshing to see a TLC drive that provides progress on something other than price. The X400 is a credible mid-range SSD that achieves SanDisk's goals and proves that even planar TLC NAND can compete for the mainstream segment.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Michael Bay - Saturday, May 7, 2016 - link
There`s 3.1 down there somewhere too.I`d like to have the source on your percentages though.
Madpacket - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Looks like the 1TB Mushkin Reactor (MKNSSDRE1TB) is still the best value drive to beat. Nice to see TLC drives other than Evo's getting better though.hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
there is also reactor LT, if you want 512GB.justkar4u - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
@anandtech : Seriously ? You are trying to compare apples to oranges to grapes. You are comparing 3D NAND products with 2D NAND, MLC with TLC type products. Sandisk X400 should be compared with OCZ Trion and Crucial BX series. As you can see X400 is better than Crucial MX in some cases ! Samsung, OCZ vector, crucial MX should not even be there in comparison. With that said, clearly X400 is the winner in TLC segment.nobozos - Thursday, May 12, 2016 - link
It would sure be nice if you could include a graph in some (all?) of your charts that normalizes for cost. Raw performance is nice, but performance/$ is also very useful.Andre74 - Friday, May 27, 2016 - link
What's the deal with referring to "Power" both as W·h, and as W (but commenting on efficiency)?Efficiency would be energy consumed per byte read, for example. Effectiveness could be bytes read per second. Measuring power usage during operation tells you nothing of either efficiency or effectiveness, unless it's calculated as total energy.
BimmerInd - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link
"The Reactor is about $25 cheaper but only has a 3-year warranty and less than half the write endurance rating." Is this because of n-cache technique? MLC, TLC factors - Does it not make Mushkin a little better one?Endurance Rating
Mushkin Enhanced Reactor 1TB - 144TB
SanDisk X400 1TB - 320TB
Moreover SanDisk X400 is recommended for OEM unlike Mushkin which is targeted at consumer? Does it make a difference?
hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Thats just manufacturer rating. I'm sure unless Mushkin uses the crappiest MLC out there, that it will outlive sandisk x400 in terms of real world endurance.BimmerInd - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
It says it uses Micron's NAND same as in Crucial's BX100. So which one should I choose?runasroot - Thursday, January 12, 2017 - link
I have a question: I know it states that it is 1024gb but is it a true 1024 or is it like something 960gb? I'm cloning a desktop with clonezilla and I need a 1tb ssd that is larger that 960GB to clone from disk to disk. <a href="https://wander.io">Wander</a>