The Samsung PM981 SSD Review (512GB, 1TB): Next Generation Controller And 3D NAND
by Billy Tallis on November 30, 2017 9:02 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.
On the Heavy test, the average data rates of the 512GB Samsung PM981 again lag slightly behind most MLC-based NVMe drives but are clearly ahead of the competitors' TLC drives. The 1TB PM981 is behaving a bit oddly with slower than expected performance after a secure erase, but great performance when filled.
The average latency of the 1TB PM981 is a significant improvement over the 1TB 960 EVO, while the 512GB PM981 doesn't stand out from the other 512GB drives. The 99th percentile latencies aren't particularly good, and the 512GB PM981 scores worse than almost all the other PCIe SSDs of that size.
The average write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent especially when the test is run on an empty drive. Average read latencies for both drives are decent but aren't a big improvement over their predecessors.
The 99th percentile read latencies are one of the few ATSB scores where the TLC-based nature of the PM981 shines through. Many MLC-based SSDs are much better at keeping read latency under control, and the TLC-based Toshiba XG5 also scores much better than the PM981 here. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is pretty good, following suit to the average write latency, while the 512GB model could use some improvement.
53 Comments
View All Comments
msroadkill612 - Sunday, December 31, 2017 - link
Not if you have lane rich TR/Epyc IMO. 2x 512GB 960 proS in raid 0 is 2x~ faster for similar moneymsroadkill612 - Monday, January 1, 2018 - link
It bears noting that each ssd is also a controller, and the samsung one seems very superior kit which may contribute to samsung's scary advantages.Each is a 5x ARM core processor.
msroadkill612 - Monday, January 1, 2018 - link
To be the devils advocate on TLC vs MLC, isn't it odd to second guess samsung?AMD natively demonstrate that raid striping nvme (running them in parallel if u like?), results in ~seamless multiple of raw nvme ssd speeds.
Since current samsung drives individually ~max out the 4x pcie3practical bandwidth available to the m.2 port (~3500MB/s), the ceiling on nvme device speeds currently, is not set by nand, but by IO limitations.
Given multiples of speed can be achieved by raid means , the main issue is not nand chip performance (already dazzlingly fast vs recent storage options), but how to better satisfy insatiable demand using better production.
Personally, I would defer to samsung on that.