Tuesday, April 18th 2023

Crucial T700 Clocks 12.4 GB/s Sequential Reads in Previews

Crucial T700 marks the brand's return to the high-end SSD segment after years of catering to the mainstream segment with well-priced drives that the company can move in high volumes. The company had retired its Ballistix brand to mark its withdrawal from the high-end. The drive combines Micron's 232-layer 3D TLC NAND flash with a Phison E26-series controller and LPDDR4-based DRAM cache, and takes advantage of the PCI-Express 5.0 x4 host interface, with NVMe. A small section of the tech press was sampled with these drives and permitted to do performance previews.

Every SSD manufacturer's favorite benchmark, CrystalDiskMark (CDM), shows the drive clock 12.4 GB/s sequential reads (1 MB, QD8), along with 9.22 GB/s (1 MB QD1). Sequential writes are as high as 11.87 GB/s (1 MB QD8), and 9.66 GB/s (1 MB QD1). IOMeter testing revealed that the sustained write speeds are rather low, with the T700 holding onto top speeds only up to 25 GB, beyond which write performance falls off a cliff to 3.8 GB/s. Find more such interesting results in the source link below.
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

12 Comments on Crucial T700 Clocks 12.4 GB/s Sequential Reads in Previews

#2
Bwaze
Another "review" that doesn't even adress what you gain with these impressive charts of synthetic benchmark. No Windows and application start measurements - I wonder why?

"There are a lot of DirectStorage skeptics, but Crucial seems pretty excited about the technology"

It's a bit hard to be excited about something that isn't here?
Posted on Reply
#3
erek
PenguinBellyNot very impressive compared to..

How’d you manage that?
Posted on Reply
#4
Minus Infinity
The Crucial might fall off a cliff to "only" 3.8GB/s for sustained, but compare that to the garbage Sammy 990 Pro which drop to about 1.8GB/s, slower than the 970 EVO plus.
Posted on Reply
#5
usiname
erekHow’d you manage that?
ram disk
Posted on Reply
#6
bobsled
usinameram disk
Pretty slow then!
Posted on Reply
#7
Bwaze
Minus InfinityThe Crucial might fall off a cliff to "only" 3.8GB/s for sustained, but compare that to the garbage Sammy 990 Pro which drop to about 1.8GB/s, slower than the 970 EVO plus.
Large SSDs with best price for TB - 4 and 8 TB SATA Samsung 970 QVO fall down from 550 MB/s to 120 or even 80 MB/s - slower than a decade old hard disk! :-D
Posted on Reply
#8
Wirko
bobsledPretty slow then!
With this kind of queued random performance, his ram sticks are probably broken in half and held together by duck tape...
Posted on Reply
#9
Minus Infinity
BwazeLarge SSDs with best price for TB - 4 and 8 TB SATA Samsung 970 QVO fall down from 550 MB/s to 120 or even 80 MB/s - slower than a decade old hard disk! :-D
Well I wouldn't touch current QVO with a 10' barge pole. Pro models from Samsung have gone to hell, and they should be properly called EVO these days. Nothing pro about them at all. How the mighty have fallen.
Posted on Reply
#10
Wye
That is cache speed, not drive speed.
I have a feeling pcie5 ssds will be a massive lie fest.
Posted on Reply
#11
erek
usinameram disk
RAID0 RAM disk?
Posted on Reply
#12
usiname
erekRAID0 RAM disk?
Ask PenguinBelly, he posted the photo
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 21st, 2024 10:41 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts