The HP S700 And S700 Pro SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on September 7, 2017 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The different classes of SSD can be identified by how much slower they perform when full compared to their fresh out of the box state. On the Heavy test, the HP S700 and S700 Pro tend to deliver average data rates that are close to the mid-range and high-end SATA SSDs when the test is run on an empty drive. When the test is run on a full drive, the best SSDs are only slowed by a few percent, while the DRAMless HP S700's average data rate can drop to a quarter of its other score. The S700 Pro doesn't suffer as badly, and its full-drive performance penalty is much less severe than what the ADATA SU800 suffers from, even when the peak performance of the S700 Pro is lower.
The average and 99th percentile latency scores make the full vs. empty performance differences even clearer. The S700 Pro's average latency is two to three times higher when full, and the S700's average latency can be over seven times higher when full. The differences are larger when considering 99th percentile latencies. The worst of these latency scores are well above the seek times of a mechanical hard drive, though overall performance is still far better than a hard drive can offer on a test with such a high average queue depth (by client workload standards). The 120GB HP S700 is the only HP drive that shows particularly poor latency compared to the competitors when the test is run on an empty drive.
Average read latencies don't vary much among SATA drives when the Heavy test is run on an empty drive; only the 120GB-class drives are significantly slower than par. When the test is run on a full drive, read latencies are merely doubled in even the most strongly affected drives. On the write side, the 120GB-class drives have much higher latency than the rest even when the test is run on an empty drive. The HPs and the ADATA SU800 are the drives that show the most severe impact from the drive being full, with the HP S700 being affected the most and the S700 Pro being less affected than the ADATA SU800.
The rankings for 99th percentile read and write latencies are similar to the average latency rankings. The 120/128GB drives are substantially slower than the larger drives, where even the DRAMless HP S700 offers reasonable performance provided it isn't full.
The larger two capacities of the HP S700 take the lead for energy efficiency when the Heavy test is run on an empty drive, and even when full they don't use significantly more energy than the Samsung 850 PRO. The 512GB HP S700 Pro also scores quite well in both scenarios, with energy usage only slightly higher than the Crucial MX300. In all cases, both HP models offer clearly better energy efficiency than the ADATA SU800.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
sonny73n - Saturday, September 9, 2017 - link
I understand that but where it'll lead us to? Most of things cost much more in the US compared to the same in China - from gasoline to food. A Chinese can cover his living expenses with just $1000/month while it takes at least twice that much for an American. Keep on rising the minimum wage will not solve the problem because we will be left with nothing to produce. Something's really messed up here.demMind - Monday, September 11, 2017 - link
sonny.. US Companies can afford to pay wages in the US. They just don't want to because executives love their year-over-year bonuses and dividends to grow. So no, prices haven't gone up because of cost of labor, they've gone up because each of us wants as much as we can get for as little extra effort as possible.Fujikoma - Thursday, September 14, 2017 - link
The price wouldn't be that much more. That extra labor savings is balanced by less efficient use of labor, material waste, shipping costs, increased counterfeit products, higher CEO pay and stock payouts if they exist (Apple is a good one for this). When companies moved to China, they did not lower their prices from cheaper labor. They lined their pockets with the extra cash. I worked for over a decade with a major electronics manufacturer invested heavily in China. Nothing but a headache for such a slim margin. That was with a 50X price margin on one of their highest volume products compared to a 12X price margin with the Mexican produced product (selling price relative to claimed materials + labor + storage + packaging + advertising + everything else involved). The higher margin is offset by shipping, defective/poorly made product, counterfeit product and material waste from poor manufacturing setup.As to the cheaper labor, that's because the U.S. allows product made from next to slave labor AND product made in environmentally damaging conditions to be imported into this country. Why do you think China has a pollution problem (aside from coal)... less regulation compared to Europe, Canada, Japan and the U.S.
Samus - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
Sonny, you realize Lenovo lost the crown 2 years ago? They held the #1 spot for 14 quarters. HP has held the #1 spot for 39 quarters since 2006 when they took it from Dell.Nobody is hurt...except the Fortune 500 companies that blindly bought into Lenovo based on price, only to have their IT dept advocate for change almost immediately. Which aligns perfectly with the 3 year corporate product cycle and the amount of time Lenovo held the #1 sales edge in North America.
I'm an IT director, I know first hand the outcry my community had over Lenovo, and not just in relation to superfish.
petar_b - Tuesday, September 12, 2017 - link
I don't stand any of these big players HP, Lenovo.... It's all rip off, Lenovo's licensing is too complicated (can't activate features you paid for on hardware that they consider obsolete) and then on HP side plenty of similar crap. You almost feel bad for asking for something you own/deserve/paid.... I love SunMicro, chenbro, clean LSI or Adaptec works with everything. What HP SSD, that one will be backed by warranty only if attached to their mobo, or whatever other stupidity...Flunk - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
Marketing terms are always meaningless without context. You always need to read the specs behind the glossy advertising to know what you're buying. I don't see that changing any time soon.MajGenRelativity - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
AgreedyankeeDDL - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
I'm shocked by the price. Dramless, with those specs, should be $70, top, for the 240GB.Why in the world would I spend no less than $116, when the EVO sells for $90?!?!?!
Glock24 - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
Just what I was thinking. Pricing on these are ridiculous. They have a bit more storage size, but so does the Crucial MX300 and it's also way cheaper and faster!Samus - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
The MX300 is pretty much the only economy drive to consider outside of an 850 EVO IMHO. Even if these sell for half the retail price, they aren't worth it. You can just pickup an old M500 on eBay (or even an OEM Intel 520/530) for half these prices and have similar performance.