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 Patriot Hellfire, in blue, is highlighted as an example of a last-generation Phison E7 drive. Although we didn't test it at the time, the MP500 was based on the same controller and memory.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

With a sequential read burst speed just shy of 2GB/s, the Corsair Force MP510 isn't the absolute fastest TLC drive on the market, but there isn't much that can beat it.

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.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer sequential read test, the MP510's standing falls and it is one of the slower drives in the current high-end NVMe segment. However, it does handle reading fragmented data better than most of its competitors.

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

The power efficiency of the MP510 on the sequential read test is similar to most of the other high-end competition, and the MP510 isn't setting any records.

The Corsair Force MP510 hits quite high sequential read speeds when operating with a high enough queue depth, but it doesn't scale well at lower queue depths with QD4 performance only slightly higher than QD1.

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 Corsair Force MP510 handsle bursts of sequential writes just as well as it does random writes, so its SLC cache sets another record. Only a handful of drives can manage more than 2GB/s for QD1 writes, and the MP510 exceeds 2.6GB/s on this test.

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 that adds in some higher queue depths, the MP510 falls out of first place but stays in a fairly high performance tier.

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

The power efficiency of the MP510 during sequential writes is well below what the BiCS TLC NAND can manage when paired with Toshiba's controller, but still above average when considering the broader field of competition.

The Corsair Force MP510 shows unsteady performance during the sequential write test, indicating that the very fast SLC write cache does fill up and that can have a significant but temporary impact on performance. At its worst, the MP510 is still handling more than 1GB/s of writes on average, so filling up the SLC cache doesn't ruin performance.

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance


View All Comments

  • PaoDeTech - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Please review Crucial P1 1TB 3D NAND NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD. I'm willing to pay $20 premium over SATA but not more. If the P1 1TB goes on black Friday sale for $179.99 I'll pull the trigger (MX500 1TB SATA is currently $159.99).
    Does anybody know what's the BOM cost difference between SATA and PCIe?
  • leexgx - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    be nice if they do a renew on it as from unreliable source that did a review (toms hard) seems to find the P1 is only a little faster then a MX500 (yes the P1 its a NVME ssd but that's only good for sequential test it seems) Reply
  • yoyomah20 - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    I've been waiting for this review to come out. I'm excited about what corsair has put out, seems like its a pretty good competetor to 970 EVO and WD Black at a cheaper price point. I've been waiting for a power efficient nvme drive to replace my laptop's stock 128GB sata m.2 drive and I think that this is the one! Too bad it's not available anywhere yet... Reply
  • G3TG0T - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Somehow the price SHOT up by double... Reply
  • G3TG0T - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Who would buy that for double the price when you could get an EVO 970??! Reply
  • lilmoe - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Damn Amazon and their sketchy crap. Go to newegg, the price is slightly up 10% though. Reply
  • Lolimaster - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    The other thing is using Office 365 Home, 6TB for $99 a year. Reply
  • shabby - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Would be nice if all sizes were tested and not just the fastest, you guys should tell oems to send your all the sizes to test. Reply
  • leexgx - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    i could imagine that would take some time to test them, as i would guess Billy/reviewer runs the tests at least 2-3 times to make sure the results are consistent (not looked at the article yet but i guess it was the 1TB one they reviewed) Reply
  • WatcherCK - Thursday, October 18, 2018 - link

    Do OSS NAS solutions (OMV/FreeNAS/Ubuntu+ZOL...) support fast/slow storage tiers transparently? I guess this would look like monolithic storage with the OS caching higher use files behind the scenes... hmmm, how hard would it be to have a hybrid drive that makes use of TLC/QLC (not in a fast caching scenario but say 512GB of TLC and 4/6/8TB QLC in one enclosure and a controller that can present both storage arrays transperently to the OS, an SSD only version of a fusion drive for example.)

    And agree with other posters about capacity, once 96 layer becomes ubiquitous then SSDs should be able to reach parity with mechanical HDD in terms of density and price as far as non enterprise users are concerned...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now