Quick heads-up on a great SSD - Toshiba 128GB

[VirtualLarry]

Newegg review for "Q series" says they are SandForce. Which would correspond with no external DRAM cache.

 

[Cerb]

Newegg review for "Q series" says they are SandForce. Which would correspond with no external DRAM cache.

Yet, (a) the TechPowerUp review shows Marvell, and (b) AS-SSD scores are far higher than what an SF-2281 should be able to come up with.

 

[Hellhammer]

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification; the reason I asked is because of this article ...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5912/toshiba-announces-thnsnf-series-ssds-19nm-nand-is-here

I took this first article to mean that the controller is Toshiba's own, not a custom Marvell as this next article (and posts here) clarifiy.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Toshiba/THNSNH512GCST_512_GB/

This article also comments on the lack of dram cache.

Back then all we got was a picture of an IO-Data SSD with an unknown Toshiba SATA 6Gbps controller in it, so I obviously expected it to be Toshiba's own. However, later it was discovered that it was actually an SF-2281 based controller and the shipping versions also have SandForce printed on the controller.

Yet, (a) the TechPowerUp review shows Marvell, and (b) AS-SSD scores are far higher than what an SF-2281 should be able to come up with.

Toshiba sells both, SandForce and Marvell, based SSDs.

 

[sequoia464]

Back then all we got was a picture of an IO-Data SSD with an unknown Toshiba SATA 6Gbps controller in it, so I obviously expected it to be Toshiba's own. However, later it was discovered that it was actually an SF-2281 based controller and the shipping versions also have SandForce printed on the controller.

It appears that I was mistaken also about a couple of Kingston V+100's that I had. Didn't realize they were JMicron, thought those were Toshiba designed controllers also.

 

[Cerb]

Toshiba sells both, SandForce and Marvell, based SSDs.

As a THNSNH? Those reviews are specifically for the THNSNH 128GB and 256GB models, for which at least 2 sites have what should be retail-equivalent samples showing "Marvell" under "Toshiba" (along with sequential performance that looks pretty much unheard-of for a SF-2281). Different controllers for the same model would be bad PR mojo.

 

[Hellhammer]

As a THNSNH? Those reviews are specifically for the THNSNH 128GB and 256GB models, for which at least 2 sites have what should be retail-equivalent samples showing "Marvell" under "Toshiba" (along with sequential performance that looks pretty much unheard-of for a SF-2281). Different controllers for the same model would be bad PR mojo.

THNSNH should be Marvell, whereas THNSNF should be SandForce (that's how I've understood it, it's quite impossible to know for sure). The Q series should be THNSNH based on the product photos on Toshiba's site.

 

[=Wendy=]

The capacity of the SSD should be an good indicator as well.
128GB, 256GB, 512GB for Marvell.
120GB, 240GB, 480GB for Sandforce.

 

[Hellhammer]

The capacity of the SSD should be an good indicator as well.
128GB, 256GB, 512GB for Marvell.
120GB, 240GB, 480GB for Sandforce.

SandForce drives can be 128GB, 256GB and 512GB as well if RAISE is disabled and this is the case with Toshiba's SSDs.

 

[Kallogan]

I bought one, 128 GB, seems really fast for a low capacity ssd. 120GB ssds usually suck.

 

[Kallogan]

Here's a review, even power consumption seem really fine !!!! Among the best i've seen.

http://www.ssdreview.com/review/com...128gb-25-inch-htran101/power_consumption.html

This ssd seems better than all samsung 120GB non-pro

 

[Doomer]

Picked one up but haven't installed it yet. Sure hope you guys are right.

 

[Z15CAM]

MV-3V4G3D-US_DDR3 1867 Mhz 9-9-9-24 1T RAMDisk Drive Vs Samsung 840 Pro 256 SSD

Copying a 2.8 GB mPeg4 Video File from RAMDisk to SSD takes approx 3 secs. Copying the same file from the SSD to RAMDisk takes approx 1.5 Secs. Copy that File from HDD to SSD take approx 19 Secs. Copy it from SSD to RAID-0 takes approx 5 Secs.

If you want to speed up your Video Encoding SSD's and a RAMDisk work as a great combination. You can Install Video Encoders to a RAMDisk Image or if it's Stand Alone like MeGUI, simply copy the App to RAMDisk and run it in RAM along with say a 3 Gb mPeg4/PCM.AVI Capture and Encode it to a 700MB MKV to a SSD or RAID-0 to save writes on the SSD.

I use RAMDisk to collect all the SLUFF Win 7 Generates with Each Session such as Log Files, Browser Internet Files and place Drive Indexing Files to a HDD, if you use Indexing. All my Application Cashing and TEMP Files goes to RAMDisk and Flushes upon Reboot. There is very little if nothing written to the SSD. I place the Pagefile on HDD in RAID-0.

That Toshiba SSD is FAST and the Price is GREAT - Humm - 128 GB's for $90 - Kinda got me thinking about an expendable Receiver Drive for Encoded Video ;o)

 

[Hero1711]

It was on sale for $71.99 4 days ago. I got 3.

 

[Cerb]

Copying a 2.8 GB mPeg4 Video File from RAMDisk to SSD takes approx 3 secs. Copying the same file from the SSD to RAMDisk takes approx 1.5 Secs.

No, it didn't. 550MBps is about your max read speed. 2800MB/550MBps = 5 seconds. If it takes much less than that, you're not copying from the SSD. Do the same at 500MBps for writes.

Did you turn off Superfetch, and reboot between file operations, to make sure it was a cold copy?

That 1.5 seconds was to copy the <1GB of the file that wasn't already in your cache, not the whole file. The majority of it was already in your RAM.

 

[Z15CAM]

that 1.5 seconds was to copy the <1gb of the file that wasn't already in your cache, not the whole file. The majority of it was already in your ram.

Interesting - But the Transfer speeds, eg: 1.5 secs Vs 19 secs, do correlate to the Transfer Rate (Speed) relative to the Speed of the interacting Media, as I've indicated?

I'm not criticizing but I want to hear more from your Observations, Conclusions and Theory.

I used AS SSD Benchmark, as the thread seems to be using it as a Meter, NOTE: The RAMDrive is not be recognized as a Hardware Device.

You want me to reboot between testing media transfer rates? Can't comprehend your logic RE: Ram Sessions Vs One Time incidents.

 

[Cerb]

You want me to reboot between testing media transfer rates? Can't comprehend your logic RE: Ram Sessions Vs One Time incidents.

1.5s can't be transferring more than about 750MB, by your own testing. Thus, the most likely situation is what you copied the file one way, then copied it other. In that time, <=750MB of it had been evicted from cache, and actually had to touch the SSD. Or, maybe almost all of it was in cache, and it took it a second to handle all the cache-checking and copying between buffers. A large part of the source data was almost certainly already in Windows' file cache.

Unless you disable write caching for a drive, Windows isn't directly copying all the data, right then (even then, it might not be reading all of it from the source disk, though the write time should be fairly accurate). When the dialog box goes away, that just means the in-RAM file system states are coherent, not that all that much data was read from or written to a disk, just yet.

Benchmark programs often use direct IO mechanisms that bypass the file and IO caching of the OS, but regular file copies do not. This is also one of the reasons why you want to have substantially more RAM available than you can commit. Even being listed as available, all of it that's listed as cached isn't being wasted.

 

[Z15CAM]

OK Will TEST - Let you Know (As I'm Set up) - I think we're approaching the outer limits of what the average user expects from to days Desk Tops.

What BENCH should I use - LOL

Gotta admit that RAMDisk AS SSD Bench is IMPRESSIVE.

 

[TheTony]

So, is there a definitive conclusion on what controller these use? I've been considering a couple of the HDTS212XZSA 128GB drives. However, as a result of previous experiences, I intend to avoid a Sandforce based product.

 

[Kenmitch]

The drive is currently a Shell Shocker today if anybody is interested in it.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820168062

I wound up picking one up. Needed another SSD to install win8 on anyways. Was thinking about whacking my 830 in 1/2 but a second SSD seems like it'll work out better for me anyways.

 

[mikeyanrol]

So, is there a definitive conclusion on what controller these use? I've been considering a couple of the HDTS212XZSA 128GB drives. However, as a result of previous experiences, I intend to avoid a Sandforce based product.

This looks like a sandforce product & if this is true, I would be surely wanting this deal! sandforce based ones works best for me in terms of reliabilty & performance.

 

[Engineer]

Where are you guys getting the Q series being Sandforce? Everything I've read (reviews, etc) show a Toshiba customized "Marvel" controller with custom Toshiba firmware.

:hmm:

P.S. The 256 GB version is $169.99 @ Newegg and with 10% coupon, it's $152.99 with free shipping.

 

[Engineer]

The 'kitted version' (with bracket, USB to SATA adapter, etc) is $149.99 @ Newegg right now. Same drive as in the Q series only (no kit) category. Has a 4 star rating with 3 reviews on this link but if you look at the Q series drive only link, it has a 5 star rating with 47 reviews. You can get two of them for $137.50 each using the '6save25' coupon @ Newegg. You can also sign up for 5% cash back through Discovercard for online purchases during the quarterly bonus right now (bringing drive to $130 each if ordering 2).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820168066

Ends tonight.

 

[Engineer]

By the way, anyone with this drive and has it over 1/2 full notice a slowdown on it, especially when it comes to writing to the drive?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/03/toshiba_thnsnh_256gb_ssd_review/5#.UlHIKRCE5rs

Reviews (several) seem to show it slows down greatly on random writes once 50% or more full.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/toshiba-thnsnh_9.html#sect0

 

[Hellhammer]

By the way, anyone with this drive and has it over 1/2 full notice a slowdown on it, especially when it comes to writing to the drive?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/03/toshiba_thnsnh_256gb_ssd_review/5#.UlHIKRCE5rs

Reviews (several) seem to show it slows down greatly on random writes once 50% or more full.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/toshiba-thnsnh_9.html#sect0

It's only temporary. It's similar to "performance mode" found in some OCZ SSDs.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7074/strontium-hawk-240gb-review/9

 

[Engineer]

It's only temporary. It's similar to "performance mode" found in some OCZ SSDs.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7074/strontium-hawk-240gb-review/9

The 2nd article linked seems to state that while it recovers, it only recovers to half of its' original performance in random writes (unlike OCZ which does eventually recover to 100% full speed).

Every parameter is back to normal except for the speed of random writing with a long request queue, which is only half the original level. As opposed to the Toshiba, the OCZ Vertex 4 could fully recover its speed after being filled with data by more than 50%.

By the way, have you (or are you) going to get a chance to review this series of drives in the future?