The Corsair MP400 1TB QLC NVMe SSD: A Quick Review
by Billy Tallis on December 11, 2020 2:00 PM ESTBurst IO Performance
Our burst IO tests run at a queue depth of one and the amount of data transferred is limited to ensure that SLC write buffers don't fill up and controllers don't overheat. In between each burst there's enough idle time to keep the drive averaging a 20% duty cycle, allowing for some buffered writes and deferred garbage collection to be completed. The random read and write tests use 4kB operations and the sequential tests use 128kB operations. All the burst tests are confined to a 16GB portion of the drive, so DRAMless SSDs are not disadvantaged as much as they are for larger tests.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
The aggressive SLC caching strategy used by the Corsair MP400 and most other QLC NVMe SSDs allows them to provide best-case random IO performance that is competitive with many high-end PCIe 3.0 drives. However, despite the 8-channel controller, the burst sequential IO performance of the Corsiar MP400 is still fairly low by NVMe standards. The Sabrent Rocket Q 8TB's results indicate that at least some of the higher-capacity MP400 models should also be able to provide better burst sequential write speeds by virtue of having larger and faster SLC caches.
Sustained IO Performance
Our sustained IO tests measure performance on queue depths up to 32, but the scores reported here are only the averages for the low queue depths (1,2,4) that are most representative of real-world consumer workloads. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, and the tests are confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
On the longer synthetic IO tests, the Corsair MP400's best results are for random writes, where its SLC cache is sufficient to keep it competitive against high-end PCIe 3 drives. The sequential write and random read performance scores are both constrained to the entry-level NVMe performance ranges, but are competitive for that market segment. The sequential read performance is relatively poor even for entry-level NVMe drives, though still significantly better than Samsung's QLC SATA alternative.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
With QLC NAND and an aging 8-channel controller, it's no surprise that the Corsair MP400's power efficiency scores are generally unimpressive, especially compared to what the 4-channel NVMe drives score when they are performing well. However, the only particularly poor efficiency score from the MP400 is for the sequential read test that it did not perform well on.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
Plotting power and performance against our entire library of benchmark results shows that—for better or for worse—the Corsair MP400 doesn't stand out from the crowd or break new ground. The random read performance stays entirely within the range of SATA drives. Random and sequential writes make some use of PCIe performance, but don't come close to saturating the PCIe 3 x4 interface. The sequential read performance does almost make it to 3GB/s at higher queue depths, but it isn't able to fully saturate the PCIe interface the way the 8TB Sabrent Rocket Q can.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | |||||||||
| Random Write | |||||||||
| Sequential Read | |||||||||
| Sequential Write | |||||||||
Digging into how performance and power scale with increasing queue depths reveals no particular surprises for the Corsair MP400. The biggest discrepancies with the 8TB Sabrent Rocket Q are for random reads and sequential writes: more flash allows the 8TB drive to continue scaling up random read performance after the 1TB MP400 is starting to reach saturation, and the larger SLC cache for the 8TB drive allows higher and more consistent sequential write performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
View All Comments
Oxford Guy - Monday, December 14, 2020 - link
850 EVO is 3D TLC built with a fairly large node.rrinker - Tuesday, December 15, 2020 - link
Yes but the point it how much data people write to their SSD, not the technology used. For the intended audience of these slower drives with lower endurance, the point being made here is that the endurance isn't really an issue. For people with use cases where these drives don't really make sense due to plenty of factors other than endurance, it might be an issue, but the people writing that much to the drive aren;t the people this drive is targeted at.Same goes with nearly every review ever posted here. It might be a basic budget product which is more than adequate for Mom and Pop to send emails and view pics of the grandkids, but ALWAYS some extreme user will pipe up with how useless the product is. Well - it's not for you, why should you care? Ma and Pa web browser and emailers don't need 64 core Threadrippers and 128GB RAM and the highest end video card on the market. If you do - then fine, get what suits your needs and ignore the products targeted at users who don't need it. All I'm saying. The key factor here is that this is an older drive and over its lifetime, it hasn't seen anywhere close to even this new drive's rated endurance, and I'm not a casual user. If this drive was around back then, I wouldn't have come close to hitting the limits of it, even though it's rated for far less writes than my 850 due to the technology used.
SodaAnt - Sunday, December 13, 2020 - link
Folding@Home was not the cause, it uses next to no disk.Mobile-Dom - Monday, December 14, 2020 - link
"normal people""Folding@home"
hmm
TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, December 15, 2020 - link
"normal people"I have a PC with a NVMe SSD. This hosts both several frequently played games and my operating system. Anything that gets downloaded goes to that drive first.
It's a samsung 950 pro. 5 years old, and its just hit 10TBW after hosting god knows how many OS installations. Somehow I find it HIGHLY unlikely you know "normal people" who go through 150TB in 2 months.
Beaver M. - Saturday, December 12, 2020 - link
Been using the same 512 GB SSD for 5+ years now. 12 to 16 hours a day.I have 62TBW now. Thats using it as a system/download/games/recording(not that often) drive.
Given that I didnt install that many different games (since Im a more casual gamer now), 200 TBW seems low. Needs at least 400 TBW, which even my low 512 GB SSD offers, because its MLC.
Its true that if youre a content creator you need much more than that.
Spunjji - Monday, December 14, 2020 - link
Those numbers suggest this drive would last a user like you at least 15 years, and maybe 18. I have doubts that it would even be worth putting into whatever system you're running by then - and that's before we get into the nitty-gritty of what a drive is rated for vs. what it will actually do.TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, December 15, 2020 - link
So this drive would last you nearly two decades then. And just because you hit the TBW limit doesnt mean the drive stops working. Techreport proved that years ago, and controllers have gotten a lot better since then.https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endura...
Beaver M. - Friday, December 18, 2020 - link
It gets a lot slower and there will be NAND fatigue.mukiex - Monday, December 14, 2020 - link
The important thing to note as drives get larger is how important they can be for storing stuff like a Steam library. Game downloads are a read-heavy operation, and cheaper SSD storage with less endurance makes for a perfect storage medium.