![]() If you write at slower speeds the drive can maintain its speed longer because A) the drive will be emptying the SLC cache in the background and you can't fill the cache as fast at 500 MB/s and B) some of the data is being cached in DRAM. This is entirely a gimmick as your system already caches, it just adds an extra layer of software overhead. What you're doing in software is no different than Samsung's RAPID Mode which uses system RAM/memory to cache transfers. QLC is awful specifically at sequential and sustained writes. another NVMe) then you absolutely got the wrong drive. If you were looking to transfer files as large as 250GB from fast sources (e.g. Once this cache is exhausted you will hit QLC folding speeds which are only 80 MB/s. The P1's SLC cache varies in size based on capacity, but for the 1TB SKU it's 140GB at its maximum and 12GB at its minimum. BTW, I have a 1 TB P1.ģ0 seconds of high-speed data transfer can be a lot: that's up to 60GB at maximum speeds (2 GB/s). I'd be interested in seeing what type of results others might get, using the Storage Executive software as I've described. The Storage Executive software also enabled me to set up a 4GB RAM-based cache for the drive (what Crucial calls their "Momentum Cache") and to over-provision the drive easily. Further, the drive appears to stay cooler than was the previous case. I realize that's a lot less than the theoretical speed of the drive's interface, but it's a heck of a lot better than I was getting with the pre-updated drive. With that update in place, I've been able to reliably copy my images to the P1 at a sustained rate of around 500 MB/sec. What made all the difference for me was installing the Crucial Storage Executive software and using it to apply a firmware update to the drive. I was very disappointed that I had purchased a drive that choked after less than 30 seconds of relatively high-speed data transfer. I use very large virtual images - up to 250 GB in size - and I was shocked with the inability of the P1 to either copy those images to another drive effectively or have one copied to it. I was quite frustrated with its performance. I had similar experiences with the P1 when I first bought it. I certainly suggest watching the linked LTT video in my guide thread to see why the 660p acts the way it does. Although I should say this is not the whole story as even drives with the same hardware may act differently - a larger SLC cache means a bigger buffer of fast speed, but usually slower speeds thereafter since it has to move & convert from SLC in the background, for example. I have basic resources and guides available here if you want to learn more - the list variant of my guide has a glossary for terms while the spreadsheet lets you compare hardware directly. Although I would stick to the E12 drives over the SM2262EN ones if you are worried about consistency (the latter rely heavily on a large dynamic SLC cache). Although there are plenty of drives that will do well there - anything in my Prosumer/Prosumer & Consumer categories. from another NVMe) then a drive like the WD Black SN750 is a good choice as it doesn't rely on SLC (only a small static case, and it has an in-line controller design which means the NAND packages are equidistant from the controller for maximum sustained writes). ![]() If you're doing a lot of sustained writes at higher speeds (e.g. Therefore, the type of drive you should seek depends on your needs/workloads. All of this juggling by the controller can impact latencies and sequential performance. Dynamic SLC cache in particular has to shrink as the drive is utilized for this reason, as on the 660p (which also has a static SLC portion), which means conversion from SLC to TLC/QLC. It's temporary as it acts as a write cache - data is later moved to the native part of the drive - and further takes up more capacity (3x with TLC, 4x with QLC). SLC caching as described on these drives is not real SLC, it's just the native NAND running in pseudo-SLC (single-bit) mode. TLC (triple-level) is 3-bit, 8-voltage state vs. ![]() TLC by far and large will always offer superior performance to QLC. There are only a few exceptions, like the 970 Pro (which I would ignore for the TLC-based 970 EVO Plus) and SM961 (OEM 960 Pro that has been on sale a lot lately, I have a thread here if you're curious). You won't find SLC or MLC drives in the consumer space anymore. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |