Plextor Teases M9Pe SSD Performance, Aims for 2018 Release

[Raevenlord]

Plextor's M9Pe is likely the company's worst-guarded secret by this point; the company has always hinted at a performance-part release that would supersede their M8Pe's offering performance and take the battle back to Samsung's reigning 960 Evo and 960 pro NVME SSDs, albeit at an expected lower price-point and a better $/GB ratio. The company is apparently so proud of what it sees as the future for its M9Pe SSDs, however, that they couldn't help themselves to contain their excitement, and shared a small teaser image for the M9Pe's performance.

The performance figures come courtesy of Plextor's USA Facebook page, and are represented in a CrystalDiskMark run. Performance numbers for this NVME drive are impressive, to say the least, with the results of this 1 TB drive besting Samsung's 960 EVO, and coming very close to Samsung's 960 PRO NVME SSD. Of course, pricing should still be one of the determinant factors in consumers' choice, but it seems that the NVME high-performance storage space is seeing some companies fighting to overturn Samsung's dominance - and fiercer competition is usually better for consumers. Of course, users should be aware that for most use cases, a good SATA III SSD will still deliver performance in spades and the best $/performance ratio on the high-speed SSD market, but for those that want uncompromising performance, having another player in the Samsung space is definitely good news.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[cucker tarlson]

That 70MB/s 4K score sucks. Traditional SSDs do 100MB/s. Mainstream nvme SSDs do 150-200MB/s. Premium like 960 Pro does over 200MB/s. That's what happens when you cheap out but still try to sway people by +3000MB/s/2000MB/s sequential R/W numbers.

 

[TheLostSwede]

That 70MB/s 4K score sucks. Traditional SSDs do 100MB/s. Mainstream nvme SSDs do 150-200MB/s. Premium like 960 Pro does over 200MB/s. That's what happens when you cheap out but still try to sway people by +3000MB/s/2000MB/s sequential R/W numbers.

I think you're seriously confused. You've mixed something up me thinks, like old versions of CrystalDiskMark with new versions, that re-arranged the tests and changed some of the tests.
These numbers are admittedly mostly not as good as the 960 Pro, but you're way off target though.

This is from a 2TB 960 Pro.

Source: http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/samsung-960-pro-m-2-nvme-ssd-review-2tb/3/

 

[cucker tarlson]

I think you're seriously confused. You've mixed something up me thinks, like old versions of CrystalDiskMark with new versions, that re-arranged the tests and changed some of the tests.
These numbers are admittedly mostly not as good as the 960 Pro, but you're way off target though.

This is from a 2TB 960 Pro.

Source: http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/samsung-960-pro-m-2-nvme-ssd-review-2tb/3/

No, I confused 4K read with 4K write <facepalm>
Those results are actually pretty good.

 

[Deleted member 50521]

It is actually faster than 960Pro. Now that the latest 960Pro firmware has crippled the performance to 2400/1000 read/write. Samsung still hasn't provided us any solution yet.