The Toshiba RC100 SSD Review: Tiny Drive In A Big Market
by Billy Tallis on June 14, 2018 9:00 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
Mixed workloads are often the toughest for DRAMless SSDs, and with this mixed random I/O test covering 64GB of the drive, the Toshiba RC100's Host Memory Buffer is of little use. The RC100 is substantially slower than other NVMe drives on this test.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
Power efficiency from the RC100 during the mixed random I/O test is also poor, but it's not a significant outlier compared from the competition. Total power consumption is half a Watt lower than any of the other NVMe drives.
 |
|||||||||
The performance and power consumption of the Toshiba RC100 are remarkably constant across the varying workload of this test. There's no sign of improved performance as the fraction of writes increases, which gives most SSDs the opportunity to perform more write combining.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
On the mixed sequential I/O test, the Toshiba RC100 is a decent performer with an average that exceeds what any SATA SSD is capable of. HMB is a bit of help here because the sequential access pattern is very cache-friendly even though the test spans a wider range of data than the cache can track.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
The Toshiba RC100's power efficiency on the mixed sequential I/O test is great with or without HMB. The RC100 is clearly much slower than the high-end drives, but its power consumption is reduced proportionally.
 |
|||||||||
The performance and power consumption of the Toshiba RC100 are not quite as flat on the mixed sequential test as for the mixed random I/O test. The RC100 gets a bit faster as the workload shifts toward writes, and HMB becomes more beneficial with increasing write volume.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I didn’t consider it either. The WD Black hit the sweet spot for me, picked the 512GB up on sale for $150...Ryan Smith - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
"My issue with Anandtech was the sole posting of the 970 EVO review and no 970 PRO review now for over 7 weeks."On the hardware side of matters, Samsung sampled us the 970 EVO at launch. They did not sample us the 970 PRO at that time. So that greatly impacts what gets reviewed and when.
XabanakFanatik - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I'm very confused at why Samsung would have sampled several other review sites with both drives (obvious by the reviews of both being posted together before launch) but have skipped on sampling Anandtech at the same time.Maybe it was a mistake? Maybe it was intentional? Maybe the 970 Pro would not have shined as well in the thorough testing you do here?
In any case, I need to apologize. Sorry, Billy, for jumping you about it. Thanks for an answer.
Ryan Smith - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link
Samsung essentially does random sampling. We got the EVO at two capacities instead of an EVO and a PRO.melgross - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Well, maybe that answers your question. If those other sites are inferior, then why would you care that they came out with early reviews?The truth is that these drives will provide more than enough performance for most people, and that includes most people here, if they’re willing to admit it.
CheapSushi - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Why are you so cranky? Seriously. Eat a snickers.gglaw - Wednesday, June 20, 2018 - link
He had a completely legitimate request/concern. If historically AT and other big sites typically review the top 2 models of any given release at a time like previous generation EVO/EVO Pro, GTX 1070/1080, etc., and HE has an interest in the product even if he's part of the <5% who cares, a thorough review would still be very significant for a semi expensive purchase. Most of us have 0 intention of buying the vast, vast majority of the reviews we read - we just like to know how new products are performing. Just like Billy and many of us here, the Toshiba drive is interesting but very few of us have any intention of buying it.Flagship products may only interest a very small percentage of the general public, but a much higher percentage of techies who follow hardware sites and even engage in the forums and comments. Most of us hardware enthusiasts buy plenty of things with almost no practical value. Anything beyong the AT light SSD testing is completely irrelevant to most home users yet we still care about the destroyer and heavy tests. I have the 850, 850 pro, 960 evo, 960 pro, and the cheapest per GB drive ever released (The Micron 3D TLC 2TB drive that goes on sale for $270 range every other week and barely above $200 with the father's day ebay coupon). My LAN room has all these drives running almost side by side and sadly no one including myself can even tell which drive is in which gaming station. Yet, I have no issues with paying 400% more per GB on one drive vs another that I literally can't tell the difference in when using the computers. The meaningless but insane numbers I see on CrystalMark somehow gives me some satisfaction.
Without Ryan clarifying the issue, most of us just assume products are sampled together based on how the reviews have come out in the past. Knowing this was different than their typical review pattern, maybe they should've just clarified it in the intro. Bashing them was unnecessary, but questioning why they would omit a major flagship release is completely valid. Flagship reviews are very interesting whether or not we buy them. They're indicative of many things that trickle down or where a company is in their technological advancement compared to others. Just because there is minimal real world difference between the 850/pro, 960/pro, how do we know they didn't tweak the 970 pro more? If Nvidia's flahship destroy's AMD's but their current midrange products are similar price/performance, there's a good chance the next midrange GTX card will be the midrange king (the 1060 comes out after 1080, the 1160 will come out after the 1180).
ptrinh1979 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I also find reviews like these to be refreshing. I prefer a variety of product reviews, not *just* the latest, greatest, and sometimes unattainable products. This review was very interesting to me because despite its flaws when the drive is full at lower capacities, its performance to price ratio makes it a contender for casual workloads. What was *really* useful for me was the price comparison chart at the end with the different capacities. I would use charts like that, and then cross reference the performance characteristics when I am recommending drive upgrades for clients who do not always have top dollars to spend, nor justify on an upgrade, yet not content to recommend typical upgrades, or corporate style upgrade recommendations.jabber - Saturday, June 16, 2018 - link
I like the reviews of the cheaper but still 'decent' gear as it works for my customers who don't want screaming top end stuff but want something better then spinning rust. Decent budget SSD options are important.ChickaBoom4768 - Saturday, June 16, 2018 - link
Totally agree with you. Such low priced technology has a real potential to disrupt the existing market instead of another $600 Intel/Samsung drive. In this case of course the drive is a sad disappointment but it was a good review.