Previewing Silicon Motion SM2260 NVMe Controller With 3D MLC NAND (512GB)
by Billy Tallis on February 17, 2017 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 SM2260 sample delivers random read performance that is on par with most of its competitors, both vetter than any SATA SSD and notably better than the Patriot Hellfire, OCZ RD400 and Intel SSD 600p NVMe SSDs.
The SM2260 sample delivers random read performance that is on par with most of its competitors, both vetter than any SATA SSD and notably better than the Patriot Hellfire, OCZ RD400 and Intel SSD 600p NVMe SSDs.
 |
|||||||||
The SM2260 scales to much higher performance at higher queue depths than the Patriot Hellfire, but doesn't hit quit as high a peak as the rest of the MLC NVMe SSDs, some of which are also near full speed at QD16.
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 SM2260 sample delivers better random write performance than Samsung's 950 PRO, but it can't match the more recent MLC-based NVMe SSDs.
The SM2260 also beats the Samsung 950 PRO on power consumption and efficiency, but against the more recent competition it fares poorly.
 |
|||||||||
Performance scaling for the SM2260 is rough as it runs out of SLC cache and potentially begins to thermally throttle as the test progresses to higher queue depths. Its average of around 450 MB/s during the second half is substantially less than what most of its closest competitors manage even when they are thermally limited.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
motigez - Sunday, February 19, 2017 - link
Honestly, at this point, TLC is the only viable technology for Client market, the incremental performance benefit you may get on MLC based SSD just don't worth it, and I expect to see little to no traction on those moving forward.LordanSS - Sunday, February 19, 2017 - link
To be very honest, a 3D MLC at 40nm has very good endurance, which would be good for a usage of heavy writes.If you're dealing with video capture and editing, it'd be a good choice over 3D TLC, even tho 3D TLC at 40nm has decent endurance as well.
leexgx - Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - link
to bad they did not continue the BX100 line as it had insane low power use (still fast enough for a low end SSD) BX200 and higher was like the worst SSD for low end SSD and power useRanger1065 - Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - link
Does anyone really care about this? The number of comments seems to indicate a comprehensive "NO." Another article, another step towards oblivion. Great job Anandtech.BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - link
I see you're back to once again try to decry the site. It's funny if things are so bad that you keep coming back to read articles, but that's a special sort of problem, I suppose. Anyway, since you're having trouble with reading comprehension, most of the comments swirl around the drive's poor performance relative to other products. Just because someone doesn't leap to their feet to applaud a device that landed at the bottom of a chart doesn't mean the reviewer, the article, or the company publishing it is doing something wrong by reporting their test results. Just because people are generally in agreement with the results via their comments certainly doesn't indicate there's a problem with the review. You're just trying to project your silly opinion on others and hope to bend reality to your will by getting prophetic about the future...or you're trolling...probably both.BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, February 22, 2017 - link
I see you're back to once again try to decry the site. It's funny if things are so bad that you keep coming back to read articles, but that's a special sort of problem, I suppose. Anyway, since you're having trouble with reading comprehension, most of the comments swirl around the drive's poor performance relative to other products. Just because someone doesn't leap to their feet to applaud a device that landed at the bottom of a chart doesn't mean the reviewer, the article, or the company publishing it is doing something wrong by reporting their test results. Just because people are generally in agreement with the results via their comments certainly doesn't indicate there's a problem with the review. You're just trying to project your silly opinion on others and hope to bend reality to your will by getting prophetic about the future...or you're trolling...probably both.watzupken - Saturday, February 25, 2017 - link
So far, the Silicon Motion and Phison's controllers always seem to perform poorly with consistency. They don't seem like they are trying to fix it with each iteration of their controller.