The Silicon Motion SM2262EN SSD Controller Preview: Good And Bad Amplified

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%.

The burst sequential read performance from the Silicon Motion SM2262EN is slightly below what we've measured for earlier SM2262 drives, but it's still well ahead of any competing TLC drive.

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. This test is run twice: once with the drive prepared by sequentially writing the test data, and again after the random write test has mixed things up, causing fragmentation inside the SSD that isn't visible to the OS. These two scores represent the two extremes of how the drive would perform under real-world usage, where wear leveling and modifications to some existing data will create some internal fragmentation that degrades performance, but usually not to the extent shown here.

The sustained sequential read performance of the SM2262EN is identical to the SM2262 drives we've tested, and tied with the Samsung 960 PRO. The 2TB -EN drive has better performance than the SM2262 drives when reading from a drive with severe internal fragmentation, but there's still a lot of room for improvement here.

Power Efficiency in MB/s/W	Average Power in W

Power efficiency from the SM2262 drives was already very good  on this test, and the SM2262EN brings an incremental improvement. Efficiency when reading from a drive with internal fragmentation is also slightly improved, but overall power consumption in that case is now over 6W, which is pushing it a bit for an M.2 drive that is being fed by only a 3.3V supply.

Silicon Motion SM2262EN 2TBIntel Optane SSD 800P 118GBSamsung 960 PRO 2TBKingston A1000 960GBHP EX920 1TBSamsung 960 EVO 1TBSamsung 970 EVO 1TBPhison E12 960GBPatriot Hellfire 480GBPlextor M9PeGN 1TBOCZ RD400 1TBADATA XPG SX8200 240GBADATA XPG SX8200 480GBWD Black 1TB (3D NAND)Toshiba XG5 1TBIntel Optane SSD 900P 280GBCrucial MX300 2050GBCrucial MX500 1TB

The SM2262 drives hit their full sequential read at QD2, but the SM2262EN takes a bit longer to get up to its limit. The eventual performance is only a little bit shy of the 3.5GB/s that Silicon Motion's specifications promised.

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 SM2262EN is a substantial jump over what the plain SM2262 provides, but it's not quite enough to put the -EN at the top of the chart. The upcoming Phison E12 holds on to that spot for now, and the Samsung 970 EVO is also still ahead of the SM2262EN.

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.

The SM2262EN does manage to take first place on the longer sequential write test, though some of this may be due to its capacity advantage over most of the other drives we have available to compare against. The 2TB 970 EVO is likely quite close to the SM2262EN, given how the 1TB 970 EVO performs.

Power Efficiency in MB/s/W	Average Power in W

The SM2262EN provides a 50% performance boost over its predecessor while dropping power consumption by a quarter of a Watt relative to the 1TB HP EX920, so it is no surprise to see the efficiency score leap upwards. Silicon Motion is now ahead of the WD Black and the Phison E12, and is almost as efficient as the much slower Toshiba XG5.

Silicon Motion SM2262EN 2TBIntel Optane SSD 800P 118GBSamsung 960 PRO 2TBKingston A1000 960GBHP EX920 1TBSamsung 960 EVO 1TBSamsung 970 EVO 1TBPhison E12 960GBPatriot Hellfire 480GBPlextor M9PeGN 1TBOCZ RD400 1TBADATA XPG SX8200 240GBADATA XPG SX8200 480GBWD Black 1TB (3D NAND)Toshiba XG5 1TBIntel Optane SSD 900P 280GBCrucial MX300 2050GBCrucial MX500 1TB

The SM2262EN takes a bit longer to reach its full sequential write speed than most drives, saturating only at QD4 or higher. But it would probably still be in first place among TLC drives if its performance stopped increasing at QD2 where it has a slight advantage over the 1TB 970 EVO.