The Corsair Neutron NX500 (400GB) PCIe SSD Review: Big Card, Big Pricetag
by Billy Tallis on August 16, 2017 10:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.
The QD1 burst random read speeds of the Phison E7 drives are all over the chart. The Corsair Neutron NX500 ranks just above the middle, while the Patriot Hellfire is the second-fastest drive in the bunch. With the exception of the underperforming Zotac SONIX and the SATA-based 850 PRO, this chart shows clear separation between the MLC and TLC drives.
Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.
On a longer test that includes some moderately higher queue depths, the NX500 comes out on top among the Phison E7 drives, but it is a bit below average compared to the market as a whole.
The power efficiency of the NX500 is not quite competitive with the Patriot Hellfire M.2, and nowhere close to most of the 3D NAND SSDs.
 |
|||||||||
The Corsair Neutron NX500's random read performance scales at higher queue depths much better than the other Phison E7 SSDs, but even at QD32 it is slower than Toshiba's own OCZ RD400 using the same NAND.
Random Write Performance
Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.
The burst random write speed of the Corsair Neutron NX500 is far below what it should be. Both of the other Phison E7 drives are substantially faster and yet still slower than even the Intel SSD 600p.
As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.
With a longer test and bringing in some higher queue depths, the Intel 600P and WD Black fall below the NX500, but the NX500 is still performing much worse than the other Phison E7 SSDs or any other MLC NVMe SSD. The Patriot Hellfire is basically tied for second place behind Samsung.
The NX500's power efficiency during random writes isn't great, but it's only slightly worse than some of the competing NVMe MLC drives and is substantially better than the entry-level NVMe TLC drives.
 |
|||||||||
The NX500's random write speed does reach decent levels at queue depths of 8 or higher, but at the low queue depths that matter for real-world desktop performance, the NX500 is way behind.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
shabby - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
According to toms review the 500gb one still does 2gb/s read/write at qd1, nothing touches it.Ratman6161 - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
Yes, according to Tom's and others, the 500 GB 960 EVO is still the drive to have in its size class - which is why I bought one. On the other hand the 256 GB 960 EVO doesn't stand up against the competition like the 500 and up drives do. So, when comparing these drives with an eye to actually purchasing one, its a great idea to find reviews of the actual size you are looking at and comparing against other like sized drives.mapesdhs - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link
Trouble with the EVO is when its cache is full it can't take the heavy writes, and its random & steady state performance are not that great. They're good enough (I bought a 250GB for my brother), but the Pro is way better, and the 950 Pro is better aswell.CrazyElf - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
This doesn't justify the premium over SATA SSDs.Unlike say, the Samsung SSD 960 series or the Intel SSD 750, which do have something to offer, especially when it comes to sequential performance, these drives really struggle to justify the premium.
Yeah it seems increasingly like Intel (SSD 750 dominates sustained writes on 4k) and Samsung (dominates most other benchmarks).
I mean, products like Optane are expensive, but at least they have some premium (ex: the good 4k performance).
versesuvius - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
Corsair expects to be paid higher for whatever it puts together no matter what. The same is true with Cooler Master and Logitech. For each single one of their products there is an equivalent product on the market that is higher in quality and performance and considerably lower in price.valinor89 - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
I don't know about Cooler Master, but logitech sells plenty of cheap stuff and some products have very good prices for what they offer. The G502 was quite the revolution in perf/price and I find my G610 to have very good quality compared to Corsais Oferings.Bullwinkle J Moose - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
With PCIe lane counts coming up, I hope to see Samsung and Intel start using themWith a full 16 lanes being used, benchmarking can finally change along with the SSD processors/firmware
Intel may take the lead with xpoint initially, but with the ability to run several simultaneous tests on an SSD max iop / mixed mode, copy/paste, 100GB uncompressed read speed, 100GB uncompressed write as well as torture tests as the onboard processors finally catch up to the lane counts, I think Samsung may yet have a few surprises for xpoint
4 lanes ain't gonna cut it for my 16 core cpu
Get with the times!
Ratman6161 - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
No matter how many PCIe lanes your ThreadRipper CPU has available (assume that's what you are talking about since you say 16 core) the spec for NVMe is still x4Billy Tallis - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
NVMe has nothing to say about PCIe lane counts. You're probably thinking about the M.2 connector, but that is hardly the only way to connect a PCIe SSD.hlm - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link
Yes, it is when NVMe is used through U.2 and M.2 that you get four-lane PCIe. When used through SATA Express, NVMe is stuck with two-lane PCIe.