The ADATA XPG GAMMIX S10 (512GB) SSD Review: Entry-Level NVMe With Style
by Billy Tallis on October 25, 2017 8:30 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
While the ADATA XPG GAMMIX S10 offers good burst random read performance, its burst sequential read performance is very close to last place among this collection of drives. Most mainstream SATA SSDs are quicker on this test, and the Samsung 960 EVO is more than seven times faster.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
On the longer sequential read test, the GAMMIX S10 comes in last place, tied with the WD Black and just a hair behind the Crucial MX300 and Intel 600p. The PCIe interface isn't helping at all here; Micron's 3D NAND is just too slow.
The power efficiency of the GAMMIX S10 is also in last place alongside the Intel 600p, and on this metric the WD Black has a small advantage. The other TLC-based NVMe SSDs deliver more than four times the performance per Watt.
 |
|||||||||
The sequential read performance of the GAMMIX S10 doesn't saturate until QD4, and that top speed is unimpressive even by SATA standards. With power consumption only reaching about 4W, thermal throttling is unlikely to be the problem. Instead, this is mostly a limitation of the flash itself, though the controller isn't making the situation better.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
The burst sequential write speed of the ADATA XPG GAMMIX S10 is much higher than the Intel 600p and more than twice as fast as a SATA SSD. The GAMMIX S10 still falls on the low end by NVMe standards.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer sequential write test, the GAMMIX S10's performance falls apart. It is barely faster than the last-place Intel 600p, and can't keep up with the typical mainstream SATA SSD.
The GAMMIX S10's power efficiency during the sustained sequential write test is bad, but at least it isn't alone at the bottom of the chart: both the Intel 600p and 750 rank slightly below the GAMMIX S10, and the WD Black's efficiency is comparable. Among the rest of the field, there isn't a clear separation between NVMe and SATA SSDs when it comes to efficiency; the fast NVMe drives pay for that performance with higher power consumption.
 |
|||||||||
The sequential write performance of the ADATA XPG GAMMIX S10 doesn't increase with higher queue depths, and instead the performance drops and varies a bit as the SLC cache is filled and background garbage collection adds some overhead.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
View All Comments
Flunk - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link
Even a proper heatspreader doesn't cool the underlying components, to do that you need fins to dissipate heat. Add fins to a heatspreader then you have a heatsink. I'm not saying heatspeaders are worthless, but they don't do much unless attached to something else.ddriver - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link
The heatspreader will work, if it has good contact with the chip, which it doesn't.The purpose of the heat spreader is ... well... to spread heat. This gives you more surface to displace heat. Fins serve to increase the head-spreading effect further, although for this product in particular I doubt fins are necessary. In fact, as I mentioned above, the way the heatspreader is implemented and the pathetic performance itself suggest that the cooling solution is 100% unneeded, and present purely for cosmetic purposes.
znd125 - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link
Information on the die/channel configuration is lacking in many SSD reviews by Billy Tallis. This information is especially important for SSDs using non-power-of-2 density NAND chips, which often result in awkward die/channel configurations that consequently lead to low performance. Tallis rarely discusses this.It is not enough to simply state "... severely reduced performance potential due to not being able to populate every channel of the controller with NAND flash chips". I expect more from AT articles. If not every, how many channels are populated? How many dies are in each channel? Are they evenly distributed? Tell us exactly how the channels are populated and then you can go on to judge whether that is good or bad.
As another example, Tom's Hardware in their Intel 600p review pointed out the drive was able to use only 6 of the 8 channels. Tallis did not. To me, that is not a trivial piece of information. That is THE reason the 600p does not reach its "performance potential" IMO.
Ratman6161 - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link
While I too would be interested to see the information you are seeking, I don't think its a critical flaw in the article. For those interested in making a buying decision, its the performance scores and the price and the price/performance equation that matter. Other information is useful if you want to know why one performs better than another. However, with nearly all SSD reviews these days, I usually end up just skimming through to the conclusion. If its a SATA drive, all I really want to know is where is its price/performance ration vs a Samsung 850 EVO. If its NVMe then the price/performance comparison is against the 960 EVO.However....here is something I really would like to see more of. When drives are tested I would like to see the same drive tested in different sizes...which is kind of getting into what you are talking about indirectly. For example, in all the charts you can see a pretty substantial difference between the 1TB and 250 GB 960 EVO's. It really would be nice to see a 512 GB in there. A drive that wins at 1 TB may not win at 512 GB. Unfortunately when I was buying the 512 is what was in my price range and I had to do some digging for information on that. THG actually did review all three sizes.
DanNeely - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link
Assuming the conclusion is right about next year's controllers being massively better than the current generation they can't get here soon enough. None of the controllers currently available to the down market OEMs are remotely competitive with samsung's last few generations of parts.MrSpadge - Sunday, October 29, 2017 - link
Adatas strategy seems to be: make many bad SSDs with fancy names and hope someones buys them by accident. Otherwise I can't explain this and the preceeding drives.