Miscellaneous Aspects and Concluding Remarks

The performance of the drives in various real-world access traces as well as synthetic workloads was brought out in the preceding sections. We also looked at the performance consistency for these cases. Power users may also be interested in performance consistency under worst-case conditions, as well as drive power consumption. The latter is also important when used with battery powered devices such as notebooks and smartphones. Pricing is also an important aspect. We analyze each of these in detail below.

Worst-Case Performance Consistency

Flash-based storage devices tend to slow down in unpredictable ways when subject to a large number of small-sized random writes. Many benchmarks use that scheme to pre-condition devices prior to the actual testing in order to get a worst-case representative number. Fortunately, such workloads are uncommon for direct-attached storage devices, where workloads are largely sequential in nature. Use of SLC caching as well as firmware caps to prevent overheating may cause drop in write speeds when a flash-based DAS device is subject to sustained sequential writes.

Our Sequential Writes Performance Consistency Test configures the device as a raw physical disk (after deleting configured volumes). A fio workload is set up to write sequential data to the raw drive with a block size of 128K and iodepth of 32 to cover 90% of the drive capacity. The internal temperature is recorded at either end of the workload, while the instantaneous write data rate and cumulative total write data amount are recorded at 1-second intervals.

Sequential Write to 90% of Disk Capacity - Performance Consistency

The SanDisk Extreme Pro and the OWC Envoy Pro EX USB-C exhibit the best possible behavior in this stress test. A steady 850 MBps is maintained throughout by the Extreme Pro (and 830 by the Envoy Pro EX), though the temperature shows a toasty 19C and 15C increase in the process for the two units. The T7 Touch starts off around 750 MBps, spends a significant amount of time at 560 MBps before ramping up again to around 600 MBps. The temperature delta is only 12C. The Crucial X8 is the worst of the lot - starting off at 825 MBps fo around 42GB of data prior to dropping below 100 MBps for the reamining duration. The temperature delta is also 15C. The Lexar SL100 Pro is slightly better - starting off at 820 MBps, before moving down to 450 MBps and then down to 180 MBps. The temperature at the end of the scenario is 63C.

Power Consumption

Bus-powered devices can configure themselves to operate within the power delivery constraints of the host port. While Thunderbolt 3 ports are guaranteed to supply up to 15W for client devices, USB 2.0 ports are guaranteed to deliver only 4.5W (900mA @ 5V). In this context, it is interesting to have a fine-grained look at the power consumption profile of the various drives. Using the Plugable USBC-TKEY, the bus power consumption of the drives was tracked while processing the CrystalDiskMark workloads (separated by 30s intervals). The graphs below plot the instantaneous bus power consumption against time, while singling out the maximum and minimum power consumption numbers.

Drive Power Consumption - CrystalDiskMark Workloads

The Samsung Portable SSD T7 Touch's race to idle is the most interesting aspect decipherable from the above results. At just 570 mW idle power consumption, the T7 Touch is a winner when used with a battery-powered host. The peak power consumption is also below 4.5W. The OWC Envoy Pro EX USB-C does go beyond 6W, but, only for a very brief while.

Pricing

The price of flash-based storage devices tend to fluctuate quite a bit over time. However, the relative difference between different models usually doesn't change. The table below summarizes the product links and pricing for the various units discussed in the review.

External Flash Storage Devices - Pricing
Product Model Number Capacity (GB) Street Price (USD) Price per GB (USD/GB)
DIY Plugable USBC-NVME and MyDigitalSSD SBX 1TB USBC-NVME 960 $140 0.15
Crucial Portable SSD X8 1TB CT1000X8SSD9 1000 $165 0.17
Lexar SL100 Pro 1TB LSL100P-1TBRBNA 1000 $179 0.18
Samsung Portable SSD T7 Touch 1TB MU-PC1T0S/WW 1000 $230 0.23
SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable SSD 1TB SDSSDE80-1T00-A25 1000 $230 0.23
OWC Envoy Pro EX USB-C 2TB ENVPROC2N20 1920 $450 0.23

A DIY build is cheap, but can suffer from improper thermals. The X8, with its QLC memory is the cheapest off-the-shelf USB 3.2 Gen 2 SSD, followed closely by the Lexar SL100 Pro. However, both of them are not impressive when it comes to performance consistency for power users. The Extreme Pro and the T7 Touch are priced the same at $0.23/GB.

Final Words

After careful analysis of various aspects (including benchmark numbers, temperatures, and power consumption), it is clear that there is no single DAS unit that wins on all metrics.

Casual users looking for a cheap deal could go in for the X8 - it does win on a lot of benchmarks. However, power users would do well to stay away from it because the performance of the unit is abysmal after the SLC cache runs out.

Users looking for a secure, yet easy to use DAS or those looking for DAS units to use mainly with battery-operated devices should go for the Samsung T7 Touch. Its fingerprint security feature is easy to use, as there is no need to remember passwords. Its thermal design and power consumption profiles are also excellent. The only drawback is that the performance doesn't match up to other devices in the fray.

The OWC Envoy Pro EX has an attractive industrial design and exhibits great performance consistency. Its benchmark numbers are also good, but, given that we evaluated a 2TB model, it is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison with the other drives.

From the viewpoint of raw performance for power users, our recommendation would go to the SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable SSD. Our only gripe is that its thermal design could do with some improvement.

PCMark 10 Storage Bench - Real-World Access Traces
Comments Locked

38 Comments

View All Comments

  • zebrax2 - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    For the ATTO you can probably create 2 line charts, for bytes and IO, with the read having solid lines and writes using dashed lines and lighter colors for example.

    As for CDM something similar to the charts here
    https://www.anandtech.com/show/15207/the-snapdrago...

    Anyway this is only my suggestion. If you do decide to keep the current layout may I at least suggest to have the expand all options on all the benchmark (e.g. the ATTO and CDM results doesn't have this option)
  • mm0zct - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    I agree that it's not helpful to have all the comparisons separate, hidden under pulldown (can we get consolidated comparison graphs please?), but I'd also be interested to see the T5 in here for comparison as a SATA based USB3.1 gen2 drive.
  • MScrip - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    Exactly. It would be nice to include a comparison to Samsung's previous highly-regarded SSD... the venerable Samsung T5 drive.

    Whenever there is a new version of a device... it's customary to compare it to the previous generation.

    It appears that Anandtech is strictly comparing MVNe drives here. But it would still be helpful for T5 owners.
  • R3MF - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    is it fair to say that if you want ssd file storage that requires sustained sequential writes to 90% of disk capacity then you won't actually lose much performance by going for a sata based solution over the shiny new usb>PCI3.0 4x nvme?

    i.e. all that pcie bandwidth tends to be useful only for bursty activity until the SLC/ram cache is exhausted and cannot sustain full bandwidth write speeds.
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    Most high-end consumer NVMe SSDs can average at least 1GB/s for a whole drive write to their 1TB models. Several average 1.5GB/s or higher, even though they are still using TLC with SLC caching. So it's definitely possible to do far better than SATA-based portable storage, but it may require a higher class of NVMe drive than some portable SSDs use.
  • R3MF - Friday, January 24, 2020 - link

    thank you.
    recently bought a 2tb sata drive for storage.
    think i'll be happy with 540MB/s vs 80MB/s for a 2.5" portable, enough that i won't miss a doubling to 1GB/s too much.
  • AnarchoPrimitiv - Sunday, January 26, 2020 - link

    If you need the fastest performance and do not have a Thunderbolt 3 port, I'd recommend buying the newly released USB 3.2 Gen2x2 add in card released by Gigabyte if I remember correctly. It is capable of 20Gbps (so double the speed of these drives) and Western Digital just released their external P50 drive which can saturate the connection with sequential r/w at 2000MB/s. Or if you'd rather make a DIY solution with an enclosure, I believe Asmedia has released a bridge chip for USB 3.2 Gen2x2 so I'd expect enclosures to hit the market soon
  • HStewart - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    One thing good about forthcoming USB4 is that Thunderbolt 3 will be full stream and prices of TB3 drives will be coming down.
  • Korguz - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    maybe . but will intel still have to certify it ?? if so... that is a major hurdle for any TB device to be adopted and used....
  • Dragonstongue - Thursday, January 23, 2020 - link

    mehhh QLC (whatever want to call them) should be that much lower cost to consumer than prices I have seen as of late, likely save the company who makes them a whole whack per die (per drive) vs "regular" such as TLC certainly vs MLC and significant price difference vs the much prefered SLC design, overall has not dropped price as much as I would expect if I am to be completely honest, in other words, the makers want as many of them sold as possible to reap the RnD by making them in the first place, but at same time do not seem overly "keen" on putting on the shelves around the world at "ok" price point.

    That $169 easily becomes in the $240+ range most other places than USA which makes something that "seems" pretty reasonable price run into the area of "why bother when spinning rust is much much lower cost, even if slower"

    mehh is all I can personally say, though thank you for the review overall ^.^

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now