The Toshiba XG6 1TB SSD Review: Our First 96-Layer 3D NAND SSD
by Billy Tallis on September 6, 2018 8:15 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The average data rates delivered by the Toshiba XG6 on the Light test are similar to many other high-end NVMe SSDs though clearly lower than the fastest tier of drives. As with the Heavy test, the full-drive performance is the more significant improvement from the XG5.
Average latency from the XG6 has improved for both full and empty drive test runs, but the 99th percentile latency when the Light test is run on a freshly erased drive is actually worse than the XG5.
Average read latency doesn't vary much among high-end NVMe SSDs, though there are some outliers for full-drive read latency. The XG6 doesn't have the best scores, but the improvements the XG6 brings over the XG5 help ensure it doesn't stick out even among the newest and fastest competitors. For average write latency, the improvement in full-drive performance secures the XG6 a position in the high-end tier.
The 99th percentile read latency from the XG6 is typical for a high-end SSD when the Light test is run on an empty drive but a little high when the drive is full, though it's still improved over the XG5. The 99th percentile write latency regressed significantly for the empty-drive test run, back to the level of old high-end drives or current entry-level NVMe, but the full-drive 99th percentile write latency is excellent.
The energy used by the XG6 over the course of the Light test is barely different from that used by the XG5 or the WD Black. All three are slightly less efficient than the Crucial MX500 mainstream SATA drive and some of the more efficient entry-level NVMe drives.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
Valantar - Friday, September 7, 2018 - link
AFAIK they're very careful which patches are applied to test beds, and if they affect performance, older drives are retested to account for this. Benchmarks like this are never really applicable outside of the system they're tested in, but the system is designed to provide a level playing field and repeatable results. That's really the best you can hope for. Unless the test bed has a consistent >10% performance deficit to most other systems out there, there's no reason to change it unless it's becoming outdated in other significant areas.iwod - Thursday, September 6, 2018 - link
So we are limited by PCI-e interface again. Since the birth of SSD, we pushed past SATA 3Gbps / 6Gbps, than PCI-E 2.0 x4 2GB/S and now PCI-E 3.0, 4GB/s.When are we going to get PCI-E 4.0, or since 5.0 is only just around the corner may as well wait for it. That is 16GB/s, plenty of room for SSD maker to figure out how to get there.
MrSpadge - Thursday, September 6, 2018 - link
There's no need to rush there. If you need higher performance, use multiple drives. Maybe on a HEDT or Enterprise platform if you need extreme performance.But don't be surprised if that won't help your PC as much as you thought. The ultimate limit currently is a RAMdisk. Launch a game from there or install some software - it's still surprisingly slow, because the CPU becomes the bottleneck. And that already applies to modern SSDs, which is obvious in benchmarks which test copying, installing or application launching etc.
abufrejoval - Friday, September 7, 2018 - link
Could also be the OS or the RAMdisk driver. When I finished building my 128GB 18-Core system with a FusionIO 2.4 TB leftover and 10Gbit Ethernet, I obviously wanted to bench it on Windows and Linux. I was rather shocked to see how slow things generally remained and how pretty much all these 36 HT-"CPU"s were just yawning.In the end I never found out, if it was the last free version (3.4.8) version of SoftPerfect's RAM disk that didn' seem to make use of all four memory Xeon E5 memory channels, or some bottleneck in Windows (never seen Windows update user more than a single core), but I never got anywhere near the 70GB/s Johan had me dream of (https://www.anandtech.com/show/8423/intel-xeon-e5-... Don't think I even saturated the 10Gbase-T network, if I recall correctly.
It was quite different in many cases on Linux, but I do remember running an entire Oracle database on tmpfs once, and then an OLTP benchmark on that... again earning myself a totally bored system under the most intensive benchmark hammering I could orchestrate.
There are so many serialization points in all parts of that stack, you never really get the performance you pay for until someone has gone all the way and rewritten the entire software stack from scratch for parallel and in-memory.
Latency is the killer for performance in storage, not bandwidth. You can saturate all bandwidth capacities with HDDs, even tape. Thing is, with dozens (modern CPUs) or thousands (modern GPGPUs) SSDs *become tape*, because of the latencies incurred on non-linear access patterns.
That's why after NVMe, NV-DIMMs or true non-volatile RAM is becoming so important. You might argue that a cache line read from main memory still looks like a tape library change against the register file of an xPU, but it's still way better than PCIe-5-10 with a kernel based block layer abstraction could ever be.
Linear speed and loops are dead: If you cannot unroll, you'll have to crawl.
halcyon - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Thank you for writing this.Quantum Mechanix - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Awesome write up- my favorite kind of comment, where I walk away just a *tiny* less ignorant. Thank you! :)DanNeely - Thursday, September 6, 2018 - link
We've been 3.0 x4 bottlenecked for a few years.From what I've read about the implementing 4.0/5.0 on a mobo I'm not convinced we'll see them on consumer boards, at least not in its current form. The maximum PCB trace length without expensive boosters is too short, AIUI 4.0 is marginal to the top PCIe slot/chipset and 5.0 would need signal boosters even to go that far. Estimates I've seen were $50-100 (I think for an x16 slot) to make a 4.0 slot and several times that for 5.0. Cables can apparently go several times longer than PCB traces while maintaining signal quality, but I'm skeptical about them getting snaked around consumer mobos.
And as MrSpadge pointed out in many applications scale out wider is an option, and what I've read that Enterprise Storage is looking at. Instead of x4 slots that have 2/4x the bandwidth of current ones that market is more interested in 5.0 x1 connections that have the same bandwidth as current devices but which would allow them to connect 4 times as many drives. That seems plausible to me since enterprise drive firmware is generally tuned for steady state performance not bursts and most of them don't come as close to saturating buses as high end consumer drives do for shorter/more intermitant workloads.
abufrejoval - Friday, September 7, 2018 - link
I guess that's why they are working on silicon photonics: PCB voltage levels, densities, layers, trace lengths... Whereever you look there are walls of physics rising into mountains. If only PCBs weren't so much cheaper than silicon interposers, photonics and other new and rare things!darwiniandude - Sunday, September 9, 2018 - link
Any testing under windows on current MacBook Pro hardware? Those SSD's I would've thought are much much faster, but I'd love to see the same test on them.halcyon - Monday, September 10, 2018 - link
Thanks for the review. For future, could you consider segregating the drives into different tiers based on results, e.g. video editing, dB, generic OS/boot/app drive, compilation, whatnot.Now it seems that one drive is better in ine thing, and another drive in anither scenario. But not having your in-depth knowledge, makes it harder to assess which drive would be closest to optimal in which scenario.