The Crucial P1 1TB SSD Review: The Other Consumer QLC SSD
by Billy Tallis on November 8, 2018 9:00 AM ESTConclusion
The Crucial P1 SSD doesn't leave us particularly excited about the near-term prospects for QLC NAND in the consumer SSD market. The P1 is a decent entry-level NVMe SSD for less intensive workloads, but the wide gap between its best and its worst performance means the P1 comes with more caveats than most of its competition.
The Crucial P1 relies very heavily on its SLC cache to provide high performance, and that cache shrinks as the drive fills up. When the drive is full, a very write-heavy workload can overflow the cache and severely impact write speeds and even read performance to some extent. However when the drive isn't close to full, it is nearly impossible to fill the SLC cache with a realistic workload, and the Crucial P1 performs at least as well as any other entry-level NVMe drive, and sometimes rivals high-end NVMe drives. Compared to the Intel 660p, the SLC cache on the Crucial P1 seems to be more write-oriented and is not as good at accelerating read operations. It seems like the P1 may be a bit quicker to evict data from the cache and compact it into QLC blocks.
Overall the Crucial P1 is primarily aimed at consumer machines, and that definitely seems like the segment it's best suited for. A typical consumer use case would involve most of the large data on the drive coming from things like movies and video games that are rarely modified, as opposed to workstation workloads that generate massive files that constantly change. This is helpful to the P1 because it reduces the actual amount of writing the drive needs to do, though it does mean that the drive's variable-size SLC cache could end up quite small. On balance, even that small cache should be adequate given the limited amount of data that does change with most consumer workloads; though to be sure, overflowing the SLC cache is something that would be far more noticeable on the P1 than most TLC-based SSDs. But it is still not something that will happen to most consumers often enough to worry about.
That leaves the Crucial P1 as usually being very fast, and definitely faster overall than any SATA SSD. The use of QLC NAND doesn't cripple the drive, and is a detail that most consumers don't have to care about. Even at its worst, the P1 is still faster and more efficient than a mechanical hard drive. NVMe SSDs should aspire to more than that, but this will probably be true even of QLC SATA drives as long as they also avoid the low capacity points where high performance is impossible.
| NVMe SSD Price Comparison | ||||
| 240-280GB | 480-512GB | 960GB-1TB | 2TB | |
| Crucial P1 | $109.99 (22¢/GB) | $219.99 (22¢/GB) | Coming Soon | |
| Intel 660p | $99.99 (20¢/GB) | $189.99 (19¢/GB) | $349.99 (17¢/GB) | |
| MyDigitalSSD SBX | $54.99 (21¢/GB) | $94.99 (19¢/GB) | $219.99 (21¢/GB) | |
| Kingston A1000 | $56.99 (24¢/GB) | $97.99 (20¢/GB) | $219.99 (23¢/GB) | |
| MyDigitalSSD BPX Pro | $74.99 (31¢/GB) | $129.99 (27¢/GB) | $259.99 (27¢/GB) | $519.99 (27¢/GB) |
| ADATA XPG SX8200 | $62.99 (26¢/GB) | $107.99 (22¢/GB) | $214.99 (22¢/GB) | |
| HP EX920 | $73.99 (29¢/GB) | $119.99 (23¢/GB) | $199.99 (20¢/GB) | |
| WD Black (2018) | $85.99 (34¢/GB) | $138.46 (28¢/GB) | $259.75 (26¢/GB) | |
| Samsung 970 EVO | $87.90 (35¢/GB) | $147.99 (30¢/GB) | $227.99 (23¢/GB) | $577.95 (29¢/GB) |
| SATA Drives: | ||||
| Crucial MX500 | $52.99 (21¢/GB) | $84.95 (17¢/GB) | $154.99 (15¢/GB) | $328.99 (16¢/GB) |
| Samsung 860 EVO | $57.99 (23¢/GB) | $82.99 (17¢/GB) | $162.99 (16¢/GB) | $347.99 (17¢/GB) |
The downsides of QLC NAND are pretty easy to accept if they come with a significant price cut, but that is not yet the case for the Crucial P1 or the Intel SSD 660p. The Crucial P1 is 22 cents per GB and the Intel 660p is 19 cents per GB, so Micron obviously needs to drop their prices at least a little bit to be at all competitive. Meanwhile, mainstream SATA SSDs are about 16–17 cents per GB for 512GB and larger capacities, and there are some high-performance TLC-based NVMe SSDs in the 20-22 cents per GB range.
Ultimately if you are going to pay extra for a NVMe SSD instead of a SATA drive, at current prices there are far more compelling options than the Crucial P1 and Intel 660p. We're accustomed to seeing entry-level NVMe SSDs get undercut by more popular high-performance drives as prices in general trend downward, and the two QLC drives we have so far on the consumer market are continuing that pattern. When QLC comes to the SATA SSD market, prices will need to be at or below 13 cents per GB to avoid repeating this problem.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
With worse of everything how is it going to be "faster", do any TLC SSD beat the Samsung MLC ones? No.Valantar - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
What's the point of increasing performance when current top-level performance is already so high as to be nigh unnoticeable? The real-world difference between a good mid-range NVMe drive and a high end one are barely measurable in actual real-world workloads, let alone noticeable. Sure, improving random perf would be worthwhile, but that's not happening with flash any time soon. Increasing capacity per dollar while maintaining satisfactory performance is clearly a worthy goal. The only issue is that this, as with most drives at launch, is overpriced. It'll come down, though.JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
^ This.For typical end users, even NVMe over SATA3 SSDs don't provide a noticeable difference in overall system performance. Moving to an SSD over an HDD for your OS install was a different story and a noticeable upgrade, but that kind of noticeable upgrade just isn't going to happen anymore.
Typical end users aren't writing/reading so much off the drive that QLC presents a noticeable downgrade over TLC, or even MLC storage. Yes, right now QLC isn't cheap enough compared to existing TLC products, but we've already done this dance when TLC first arrived on the scene and people were stalwart about sticking to MLC drives only. Today? We got high-end NVMe TLC drives with better read/write and random IOPS performance compared to the best MLC SATA3 drives back when MLC was the superior technology.
Yeah, it's going to take time for QLC to come down in price, the tech is newer and yields are lower, and companies are trying to fine tune the characteristics of their product stacks to make them both appealing in price and performance. Give it some time.
romrunning - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Sure, we lost endurance and speed with the switch from MLC to TLC. But the change from TLC to QLC is much worse in terms of latency, endurance, and just overall performance. Frankly, the sad part is that the drive needs the pseudo-SLC area to just barely meet the lowered expectations for QLC. Some of those QLC drives barely beat good SATA drives.We now have a new tech (3D Xpoint/Optane) that is demonstrably better for latency, consistency, endurance, and performance. I'd rather Micron continue to put the $ into it to get higher yields for both increased density/capacity & lower costs. That's what I want on the NVMe side, not another race to the bottom.
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
Sorry, you're not the end consumer that dictates how products get taped out, and honestly, if you were in charge of product management, you'd run the company into the ground focusing on making only premium priced storage drives in a market that's saturated with performance drives.The bulk of all SSD sales are for lower cost lower storage options. There is no "race to the bottom", it's just some jank you made up in your head to justify why companies are focusing on making products for the common man. Being able to move from an affordable 500GB SSD on TLC to an similarly priced 1TB SSD in a few years is a GOOD THING.
If you want preemium(tm) quality products, SSDs with only the HIGHEST of endurance ratings for the massive Read/Write workloads you perform on your personal desktop on a day-to-day basis, SSDs with only the LOWEST of latencies so that you can load into Forknight(tm) faster than the other childerm, then how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article. The products you want with the technology you need are out there. They're expensive because it's a niche market catered towards enterprise workloads where they can justify the buckets of money.
You keep whining, I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution. Right now, getting even a cheap 1TB SSD for caching is super-slick.
romrunning - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
"...how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article."You are taking this way too personally.
I'm actually thinking more about the business side. I want 3D-Xpoint/Optane to get cheaper & get more capacity so that I can justify it for more than just some specific servers/use-cases. So I'd like Micron to focus more on developing that side than chasing the price train with QLC, which is inferior to what preceded it. With Micron buying out Intel's stake in IMFT for 3D-Xpoint, I just hope the product line diversification doesn't lessen the work to make 3D-Xpoint cheaper & even greater capacities.
JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link
>You are taking this way too personally.Talk about projecting. Micron is taping out dozens of products across different product segments for all kinds of users. They're working on 3D-Xpoint and QLC stuff simultaneously and independently from each other. What's happening here is that Micron is producing QLC NAND for this Crucial M.2 SSD, and you're here taking it personally (and therefore whining in a free news article comments section) that Micron isn't focusing enough on 3D-Xpoint and that supposedly their QLC is bad for some reason. Thing is, this news article isn't for you. This technology isn't for you. You decided your tech needs are above what this product is aimed for: affordable, large volume SSDs for lower prices.
Seriously, calm down. This wasn't an assault orchestrated by Micron against people that need/want higher performance storage options. More 3D-Xpoint stuff will come your way if that's the technology you're looking forward to. Again back to my main point, it's going to take some time for these newer technologies to roll out. Until then, don't whine in comments sections that X isn't the Y you were waiting for. If the article is about technology X, make a half-decent effort keep to the topic about technology X.
mathew7 - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link
"I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution."Wwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaattttt?? NEVER. You don't understand the SSD limits. I would not do that with SLC (assuming current quality at QLC price).
Enterprises with SSD NASes only use them for short-term performance storage with hourly/daily backup. Anyone who uses them differently is asking for a disaster.
Look for linuxconf Intel SSD. There is a presentation where they explain how reading a cell damages nearby cells and manufacturers need to monitor this a relocate the data that is only read.
I have 2 servers with only 1 SSD each for OS and 8-10TB HDDs for my actual long-term data.
All my desktops/laptops have SSDs (Intel 320, Samsung 830-860 evo+pro, Crucial BX100/MX300 etc). But anything important on SSDs will be backed-up to HDDs.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"That's what I want ... not another race to the bottom."That's what consumers want: value.
That's not what companies want. They want the opposite. Their wish is to sell the least for the most.
Mikewind Dale - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link
"[Companies] want the opposite. Their wish is to sell the least for the most."Not true. Companies want to maximize net revenue, i.e. total revenue minus cost.
Depending on the elasticity of demand (i.e. price sensitivity), that might mean increasing quantity and decreasing price.
A reduction in quantity and an increase in price will increase net revenue only if demand is elastic.
But given the existence of HDDs, it makes sense that demand for SSDs is elastic, i.e. price-sensitive. These aren't captive consumers with zero choice.
Of course, nothing stops a company from catering to BOTH markets, i.e. high performance AND low cost markets.