The Toshiba/Kioxia BG4 1TB SSD Review: A Look At Your Next Laptop's SSD
by Billy Tallis on October 18, 2019 11:30 AM ESTSequential 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 speed of the Toshiba/Kioxia BG4 is about 1GB/s: way below par for high-end NVMe SSDs, but fine for an entry-level drive. It's not too far behind Toshiba's own XG6 high-end drive, which turns in a fairly disappointing score on this test.
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.
On the longer sequential read test that brings in some higher queue depths, the BG4 maintains decent performance even while some high-end drives fall down to its level. The BG4's performance reading back data that wasn't written sequentially is particularly good, and at least a bit faster than most high-end NVMe drives can manage.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
The Toshiba BG4 uses significantly more power during the sequential read test than the older BG3-based RC100, but the performance improvements make that power well-spent. The BG4's power efficiency scores are excellent and beat most high-end NVMe drives.
 |
|||||||||
With HMB on, the BG4's sequential read speed tops out at QD4 or higher and is quite steady. Without HMB, it scales more gradually and ultimately is slightly slower at high queue depths.
The BG4 certainly isn't the fastest SSD on this test with a top sequential read speed a bit above 2GB/s, but for the speeds it does provide the BG4 is one of the most power-efficient drives we have ever tested.
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.
HMB didn't matter much for the burst sequential read test, but for the burst sequential write test it is very helpful, bringing the BG4's performance almost up to the level of most high-end NVMe SSDs.
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.
On the longer sequential write test, the BG4 with HMB still manages to be trailing close behind the high-end NVMe drives, and far ahead of most of the other entry-level NVMe competition. With HMB off the BG4 is much slower, but still acceptably fast for an entry-level drive.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
The BG4 doesn't have the lowest power consumption on the sequential write test, but it does set the record for power efficiency. Even with HMB off the performance remains high enough to give the BG4 a competitive efficiency score.
 |
|||||||||
The BG4 hits full sequential write speed with a queue depth of two or higher, and the performance is very steady after that with no sign of the SLC cache running out. Without HMB, it is limited to about 1GB/s, significantly slower than even the Intel 660p QLC SSD.
At QD2 and higher, the BG4 is one of the most efficient drives we have tested: anything with better sequential write performance is clearly drawing more power, and anything with significantly lower power consumption is also significantly slower.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
MrCommunistGen - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link
I recently picked up a Dell Optiplex 3070 Micro for a family member, and it shipped with a 128GB BG4. Performance of the 128GB model is going to obviously be much lower than the 1TB model tested here.From my anecdotal experience, performance is acceptable, but could easily be better. I replaced it with a 1TB XG6 (~$120 from eBay) - mostly for capacity, but the performance uplift was (understandably) noticeable.
abufrejoval - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link
Nice review for a solid product: Thanks!While I guess it reduces the worries about a soldered down SSD somewhat, I just hope they'll continue to sell even ultrabooks with M.2 or XFMExpress: Just feels safer and helps reducing iSurcharges on capacity.
Targon - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link
Agreed. If the motherboard fails, being able to remove the SSD for data recovery SHOULD be seen as essential by most people.Wheaties88 - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link
I don’t see why most manufacturers wouldn’t see it as useful as well. Surely it would allow for less replacement motherboards needed if they could simply change the drive size. But what do I know.kingpotnoodle - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
Nobody considers it essential because relying on removing your SSD for data recovery if the motherboard fails is a deeply flawed strategy and not applicable to the vast majority of people who wouldn't even consider opening their laptop nevermind knowing how to remove the drive and access it outside the laptop.The same thing that saves you if your SSD fails will also save you if anything else makes the machine unbootable - a proper backup.
Targon - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link
You haven't had people come to you because their laptop has died but they need their data? Consumers may not be ready or able to get data from a dead laptop that has a drive you can remove, but the places they turn to SHOULD be able to.Tell me, can you recover data from a dead Macbook(dead motherboard) these days with the storage on the motherboard yourself? If the motherboard in your own personal laptop failed, wouldn't YOU want to be able to pull the drive if you needed data from it?
abufrejoval - Friday, October 25, 2019 - link
Those who know me well enough to entrust me with their computer, know me well enough not to come close with a Macbook.And I am not even all *that* prejudiced. I loved my Apple ][ (clone), went for the PC because even my 80286 already ran Unix and I was a computer scientist after all.
I keep doing Hackintoshs every now and then, just to get an understanding of how a Mac feels and because it's a bit of a challenge.
But it's seriously behind in just about every aspect important to me: The combination of Linux and Windows gives me much more in any direction, for work and for fun. And mixing both is much less of a technical issue than life-balance.
And then the notion of having your most personal handheld computer managed by an external party is just so wrong, I am flabbergasted that Apple managers still walk free, when computer sabotage is a felony.
The Apple ][ didn't even screw down the top lid. Swapping out components and parts, adding all sorts of functionality and upgrades made it great.
This solid brick of aluminum, glue, soldered on chips and hapless keyboard mechanics they call an Apple computer these days is just so wrong, I'd throw it into recycling the minute I got one for free. I don't know if I could give an Apple notebook or phone even to a foe, let alone a friend.
domboy - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link
Since Microsoft used this in the Surface Laptop 3, I wonder if they also used it in the Surface Pro X since that also has a removable SSD. I'll be interested to find out...taz-nz - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link
Now we just need them to apply this tech to a standard 2280 form factor and give us a 4TB m.2 SSD, doesn't have to have best in class performance just a consumer class 4TB m.2 SSD.Death666Angel - Saturday, October 19, 2019 - link
There already are Samsung and Toshiba 4TB M,2 drives.