Sequential 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%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read performance of the Toshiba RC100 is faster than any SATA drive can manage, and is only slightly slower than the MyDigitalSSD SBX. The Host Memory Buffer feature has no significant impact here.

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.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer sequential read test, the RC100 places slightly ahead of other low-end NVMe drives, but there's still a pretty large gap separating it from the high-end drives that can deliver multiple GB/s at low queue depths.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

Power efficiency from the Toshiba RC100 is decent by NVMe standards, but not record setting. Total power draw approaches 2W for the 480GB model, which is still quite low for NVMe drives.

HMB appears to have a moderate impact on sequential read performance for the 480GB RC100 at some queue depths. Both capacities hit maximum performance when the queue depth is at least 8.

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.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write performance of the Toshiba RC100 is good for a low-end NVMe drive (or an older high-end drive), but is far below the current high-end drives.

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.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

On the longer sequential write test, the RC100 performs quite well with HMB on—it slightly outperforms the 250GB Samsung 960 EVO, but can't keep pace with the newer 970 EVO. Even without HMB, the RC100 is one of the faster low-end NVMe drives for sequential writes, but having that extra buffer helps a lot.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The Toshiba RC100 finally manages to score a power efficiency win: it just barely cracks 2W during this test and performance is better than most NVMe drives that pull 4W on this test.

he sequential write speed of the 480GB RC100 plateaus at 1GB/s at a queue depth of 2 or higher, but there was a drop in performance at the end of the test that may have been the SLC cache finally running out. The performance from the 240GB takes a bit longer to reach full speed, and without HMB it is both slower and less consistent.

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • MadAd - Saturday, June 23, 2018 - link

    +1

    Anyone can review a flagship release, this is real tech reporting.
  • Calin - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Yes, more people care about the low-mid end of the market than about the very high end - the M.2 2242 has multiple advantages (compact, doesn't need a 2.5 or 3.5 inch case location, doesn't need power cable, low power. Plenty of people will pay more for that, if the performance is equivalent (just as plenty of people pay more for pretty lights when the performance is equivalent, or pay more for a quiter component, or ...).
    So, while I'm not interested in M2 drives, thank you for the article :)
  • gnufied - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Actually I have been looking for a decent 2242 SSD since forever. My thinkpad T450s has a 2242 slot and we have very little options.

    Having said all this, I dunno if this is comptaible with thinkpad's 2242 slot.
  • timecop1818 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    most likely not, as that slot is probably for USB-based LTE modem or similar device. M.2 spec does provide for USB connectivity on A, B and E keyed cards/sockets.
  • gnufied - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    The 2242 slot defenitely can be used for M.2 SSDs. I am currently using https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012ASBZEO/ref=o... SSD with my thinkpad and it works.

    Reading through R100 review does not fill me with joy though. This NVMe disk does not even look better than M500.. :(
  • Targon - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    M.2 has different flavors, and depending on the slot and device you plug into it, may use a SATA connection rather than NVMe with the dedicated PCI Express lanes. The 2242 is a measure of width and length, NOT the interface. An obvious way to tell is that if you have two notches on the connector, you are not looking at a NVMe connection, while the single notch will support the PCI Express lanes. At least, that is typically what is going on. With only two PCI Express lanes, without investigating, I suppose the two notches might still give you some NVMe, but I wouldn't be sure about that.
  • Kwarkon - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link

    There are NVME drives with two notches (M+B), but this keying is limited to only 2 PCIe lines.
  • Jorgp2 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    I already ordered one, I'll try to send you a PM if it works
  • gnufied - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Nice. thank you. also do a crystal mark or something while you are at it. :-)
  • close - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Because it's less than half the price so it has a better chance of ending up in a "regular machine" than the 970 Pro. Reviews for halo products are great but what do you think most people will have a $350 SSD or a $150 one?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now