The ADATA GAMMIX S50 Lite 2TB SSD Review: Mainstream PCIe Gen4
by Billy Tallis on April 30, 2021 8:00 AM ESTBurst IO Performance
Our burst IO tests operate at queue depth 1 and perform several short data transfers interspersed with idle time. The random read and write tests consist of 32 bursts of up to 64MB each. The sequential read and write tests use eight bursts of up to 128MB each. For more details, please see the overview of our 2021 Consumer SSD Benchmark Suite.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Random Write | ||||||||
| Sequential Read | Sequential Write | ||||||||
The ADATA XPG Gammix S50 Lite performs well on most of the burst IO tests, especially when the test is confined to a narrow range of the drive so that it won't overflow the SLC and DRAM caches. When the test ranges over 80% of the drive, the S50 Lite's write speeds are much lower (due to less available SLC cache) and the random read performance is also a bit lower (due to insufficient DRAM).
Sustained IO Performance
Our sustained IO tests exercise a range of queue depths and transfer more data than the burst IO tests, but still have limits to keep the duration somewhat realistic. The primary scores we report are focused on the low queue depths that make up the bulk of consumer storage workloads. For more details, please see the overview of our 2021 Consumer SSD Benchmark Suite.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | Throughput | Power | Efficiency | ||||||
| Random Write | Throughput | Power | Efficiency | ||||||
| Sequential Read | Throughput | Power | Efficiency | ||||||
| Sequential Write | Throughput | Power | Efficiency | ||||||
Adding in some slightly higher queue depths and longer test durations doesn't substantially change how the S50 Lite ranks. Its peak performance is still competitive with the best PCIe Gen3 drives, but as the drive fills up and the locality of the workload drops, it loses more performance than those 8-channel Gen3 drives with the full amount of DRAM.
The power efficiency score on these tests generally look better for the S50 Lite than the energy usage scores from the ATSB tests. Its efficiency is generally at least middle-of-the-road except in the situations where performance starts seriously dropping.
 |
|||||||||
| Random Read | |||||||||
| Random Write | |||||||||
| Sequential Read | |||||||||
| Sequential Write | |||||||||
Looking across the full range of queue depths shows the same performance patterns for the S50 Lite continuing and amplifying. Except on the sequential read test, the S50 Lite shows huge performance disparities between the narrow 32GB range test runs and those that cover 80% of the drive. The lower DRAM ratio is a handicap on the random read test, and the SLC cache often overflows when testing writes against an 80% full drive. But when the tests are only covering a small slice of the drive, the S50 Lite shows good performance scaling that is comparable to the best gen3 drives.
Random Read Latency
This test illustrates how drives with higher throughput don't always offer better IO latency and Quality of Service (QoS), and that latency often gets much worse when a drive is pushed to its limits. This test is more intense than real-world consumer workloads and the results can be a bit noisy, but large differences that show up clearly on a log scale plot are meaningful. For more details, please see the overview of our 2021 Consumer SSD Benchmark Suite.
 |
|||||||||
The ADATA S50 Lite starts out with decent random read latency at low loads, but the 99th percentile latencies climb quite a bit during the early part of the test. The S50 Lite ultimately fails to make it to the high IOPS range we expect from such a drive, and instead loses control of its latency around 150k IOPS—behavior that's more fitting of a QLC drive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
'At least'? QLC is a downgrade, not an upgrade.Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
Never wrote that the A400 was upgraded ;)Sorry, I´m not a native english speaking person
Tomatotech - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
I've run an ADATA XPG SX8200 (non-pro) 1TB for the past 3+ years in my MacBook Pro as the system drive. Been very happy with it, and still blistering fast even now. Was approx 3x faster read & 4x faster write than the Apple OEM SSD, made a big difference to the feel of my MPB.As to changing components, not brilliant, but perhaps inevitable over the life of a long-lived model. Most SSD brands are not full-stack manufacturers, and supply / cost of sub-components is outside their control. As long as it meets the specs on the box and isn't crippled (like silently changing HDD models to HAMR mechanism without stating on the box).
Anandtech was quite accepting of companies changing SSD components on their middle-low end lines in the last SSD roundup. The 8200 Pro launched around 3 years ago, and while it's still damn fast for most people, I'd call it middle of the road now that PCIe 4.0 is here.
Scour - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
I would prefer a new model-name if other components are used.MrCommunistGen - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
+1They could easily have done this a number of ways:
1. add a letter to the end of the model with each rev, SX8200A, SX8200B
2. add Mk1, Mk2, etc.
3. increment the model number by +1 every time, SX8201, SX8202, etc
Each of these signify that it's still a related product aimed at the same market segment, while communicating that it isn't the exact same hardware that was reviewed when the product initially came out.
Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link
I still think the main reason is to use a model name which had good reviews.And maybe it costs 10 cents more/piece if you order new packages with a new model number
Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
And yet Intel, which was mentioned on the first page, has been at the forefront of pushing the anti-value QLC trash.Which would you rather choose? A company that is openly hostile to consume value or one that changes parts surreptitiously?
Nvidia is reportedly going to surreptitiously sell some 3060s with its latest anti-mining thing, without bothering to let consumers know which type they're getting for their money. Things like that should be illegal but the world is not governed adequately. Caveat emptor rules. The panel lottery for TVs is a huge example of the surreptitiousness fraud.
bji - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Holy crap man, will you get off of your anti-QLC rant already?Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
Ad hominem won't change reality. In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns.Moreover, every dollar consumers spend on QLC reduces the price value of TLC by reducing TLC production.
I'm not sorry that I'm ruffling the feathers of various QLC-peddling corporations by posting the truth. Being attacked for it is hardly unexpected. It's how business communication works.
FunBunny2 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link
"In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns."IFF both TLC and QLC are on the same node size. moving back up to a larger node (and I know not whether that's happened) for QLC could (note the subjunctive) end up with an equivalent NAND density/bit. that, of course, should be the controlling factor.