• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

ADATA SU900 512 GB SSD

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,959 (3.75/day)
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
The ADATA SU900 sticks to proven MLC flash chips in a market where most of the budget drives are TLC, with low sustained write performance and low endurance. In our review, we see good performance results that are on par with competing drives from Samsung and Crucial.

Show full review
 
Last edited:
Thanks master.
MySQL graph confuses me. Vertical axis is query volume, and horizontal user volume, and Samsung 950 Pro is at the bottom. So is this a "higher is better" or "lower is better" graph. Maybe my fault, I need another cup of coffee... : )
 
Quite pricey, for like $30 more you can get 1TB drives these days.

About the review format itself, you're using IOPS to measure random access perfotmance and MB/s to measure sequential performance. Since they're both on the same page, perhaps using a single unit of measure would make more sense?
 
Thanks master.
MySQL graph confuses me. Vertical axis is query volume, and horizontal user volume, and Samsung 950 Pro is at the bottom. So is this a "higher is better" or "lower is better" graph. Maybe my fault, I need another cup of coffee... : )
Higher is better. At the bottom is 850 Pro. 950 Pro is somewhere in the middle.
 
Perfecto! :)

BTW, I can't thank you enough for using that format for the graph's "waves" (using different crosses and forms) don't know its proper name), I am a little colorblind and graphs with only subtle colors to distinguish each line are a no go for me. ;)
 
Perfecto! :)

BTW, I can't thank you enough for using that format for the graph's "waves" (using different crosses and forms) don't know its proper name), I am a little colorblind and graphs with only subtle colors to distinguish each line are a no go for me. ;)
Excel does that by default. I think. Trying my best :)
 
Quite pricey, for like $30 more you can get 1TB drives these days.

Perhaps at your location, because most definitely I cannot get 1TB SSD for $245 here, Black Friday or not...
 
Perhaps at your location, because most definitely I cannot get 1TB SSD for $245 here, Black Friday or not...
Not sure where you got that $245, because you can't get the SU900 512GB for $215 at your location either ;)
 
The MS Office installation is the one that surprises me. Any idea why the RD400 and Samsung 950 performed so poorly?
 
@W1zzard
I also have to say Thanks for this review! Been looking for a new drive to replace a failing TLC-based drive in one of the laptops we've got, and with this one being MLC based it fits that need perfectly. Based on a search on Amazon, they also have several other sizes ranging from 128GB to 1TB. Prices are good too.
Quite pricey, for like $30 more you can get 1TB drives these days.
You're not getting 1TB MLC-based drives for $245. TLC, maybe. MLC 1TB drive's start at $270 on Amazon or Newegg.
 
Last edited:
You're not getting 1TB MLC-based drives for $245. TLC, maybe. MLC 1TB drive's start at $270 on Amazon or Newegg.

Never said you were getting MLC, just twice the storage. And even if for some reason you must have MLC, what do you choose between $215 for 500GB and $270 for 1TB?
 
Never said you were getting MLC, just twice the storage. And even if for some reason you must have MLC, what do you choose between $215 for 500GB and $270 for 1TB?
TLC is less durable than MLC. The TLC drive that is failing is losing a lot of sectors due to wearing out. MLC has much more durability by an average of 10 to 11 times. So yeah, I'm willing to pay the premium. The 512GB $215 is likely the MSRP. Amazon has it for less that $200. But the system it would be intended for doesn't need 1TB, a 256GB or 512GB would do fine.
 
TLC is less durable than MLC. The TLC drive that is failing is losing a lot of sectors due to wearing out. MLC has much more durability by an average of 10 to 11 times. So yeah, I'm willing to pay the premium. The 512GB $215 is likely the MSRP. Amazon has it for less that $200. But the system it would be intended for doesn't need 1TB, a 256GB or 512GB would do fine.
That was an issue for planar MLC vs planar TLC. 3D TLC has about the same endurance as planar MLC, so that is not an issue anymore. Of course, 3D MLC gets even better endurance, so if you need that, it's certainly an option.
For reference, I have two 5 years old OCZ Vertex 4 drives and CrystalDiskMark reports ~6,800 power on hours while both report 100% health. They're planar MLC, so similar to what a 3D TLC drive will look 5 years from now.
 
That was an issue for planar MLC vs planar TLC. 3D TLC has about the same endurance as planar MLC, so that is not an issue anymore.
That has been stated but has not, as of yet, been proven. Though 3D-TLC has been shown to be more durable.
Of course, 3D MLC gets even better endurance, so if you need that, it's certainly an option.
Been looking at those kinds of drives. They're a bit pricey compared to standard MLC. Still doing research. Longevity is a concern. I intend to do drive upgrades in most of my systems over the next 6 to 9 months as the market seems to be in a sweet-spot ATM where the balance between price/capacity/durability is concerned.
For reference, I have two 5 years old OCZ Vertex 4 drives and CrystalDiskMark reports ~6,800 power on hours while both report 100% health. They're planar MLC, so similar to what a 3D TLC drive will look 5 years from now.
It'll be interesting to see those results as they progress.
 
Last edited:
Can someone clarify why the fastest SSD don't have impact on gaming load time ?

I and my wife play Sims 3 with all expansions pack (33.5GB) plus tons of custom contents (56.6GB) So that is already close to 100GB. Will NVME SSD really improve experience from normal SATA SSD in these kind of game ? because my SSD in the sig still take around 3 minute to load very large house (HDD can take 5-7 minute).

I have been test with i7-3770K @ 5.3Ghz 4 years ago and try to measure scaling from 2.5Ghz , 3Ghz , 3.5Ghz , 4Ghz , 4.5Ghz , 5Ghz , 5.3Ghz and found good scaling (higher Ghz = Shorter loading time). Not sure if this proof that CPU is a bottleneck rather than storage.
 
Last edited:
Can someone clarify why the fastest SSD don't have impact on gaming load time ?

I and my wife play Sims 3 with all expansions pack (33.5GB) plus tons of custom contents (56.6GB) So that is already close to 100GB. Will NVME SSD really improve experience from normal SATA SSD in these kind of game ? because my SSD in the sig still take around 3 minute to load very large house (HDD can take 5-7 minute).

I have been test with i7-3770K @ 5.3Ghz 4 years ago and try to measure scaling from 2.5Ghz , 3Ghz , 3.5Ghz , 4Ghz , 4.5Ghz , 5Ghz , 5.3Ghz and found good scaling (higher Ghz = Shorter loading time). Not sure if this proof that CPU is a bottleneck rather than storage.
I think you are on the right track. The data needs to go from storage through CPU, where it might be processed in some way, to the graphics card over PCIe bus and to the system RAM. Various bottlenecks on the way. The difference between HDD and SSD is huge because disk seeks become free, going from SSD to NVMe seems to make little difference. On some systems it even makes game loading slower because NVMe sits on PCIe and eats up the bandwidth for the graphics card (during level load).

Every game is different though, so the sims might see good improvements.
 
On some systems it even makes game loading slower because NVMe sits on PCIe and eats up the bandwidth for the graphics card (during level load).

I want more info on that. Direct CPU lines or via PCH? Examples to test it out. I've currently did a bonkers thing a put plain windows on 32GB Optane, it actually fits nice, and dedicated 950Pro to fight Sauron... I've kept in 750EVO before... (I hate that TLC drive with my guts, it gets more full and starts to crawl)
 
Can someone clarify why the fastest SSD don't have impact on gaming load time ?

I and my wife play Sims 3 with all expansions pack (33.5GB) plus tons of custom contents (56.6GB) So that is already close to 100GB. Will NVME SSD really improve experience from normal SATA SSD in these kind of game ? because my SSD in the sig still take around 3 minute to load very large house (HDD can take 5-7 minute).

I have been test with i7-3770K @ 5.3Ghz 4 years ago and try to measure scaling from 2.5Ghz , 3Ghz , 3.5Ghz , 4Ghz , 4.5Ghz , 5Ghz , 5.3Ghz and found good scaling (higher Ghz = Shorter loading time). Not sure if this proof that CPU is a bottleneck rather than storage.
The fact that going from HDD to SSD (~10x faster) only cuts the load times in half should be indication enough that storage is not your only bottleneck.
 
Can someone clarify why the fastest SSD don't have impact on gaming load time ?

I and my wife play Sims 3 with all expansions pack (33.5GB) plus tons of custom contents (56.6GB) So that is already close to 100GB. Will NVME SSD really improve experience from normal SATA SSD in these kind of game ? because my SSD in the sig still take around 3 minute to load very large house (HDD can take 5-7 minute).

I have been test with i7-3770K @ 5.3Ghz 4 years ago and try to measure scaling from 2.5Ghz , 3Ghz , 3.5Ghz , 4Ghz , 4.5Ghz , 5Ghz , 5.3Ghz and found good scaling (higher Ghz = Shorter loading time). Not sure if this proof that CPU is a bottleneck rather than storage.

There are two variables in data transfer: throughput, and latency. Throughput is how fast a storage device (memory, SDD, HDD) can transfer data, the higher the better; latency is how quickly a device can respond to requests to transfer data (in other words, how long other parts of the system have to wait before the device begins sending the requested data) - the lower the better.

Hard drives have poor throughput and terrible latency. Comparably, SSDs have many more times throughput, but orders of magnitude lower latency. This is why going from an HDD to an SSD is such a noticeable change. On the other hand, an NVMe SSD's throughput is again many times that of its SATA brethren, but its latency is almost the same.

Why does this matter? Because the majority of data transfer workloads that occur on consumer PCs involve large numbers of small files. That means latency, not throughput, is the limiting factor, and is why going from a SATA to NVMe SSD is not going to make much of a difference to the average consumer.

The reason that you saw better loading times with higher CPU clocks is due to the fact that a program never just "loads" data - it loads and processes it into the format it needs. When you were using a HDD, the loading took far longer because the HDD's high latency was the bottleneck; the CPU probably spent as much time waiting for the HDD to serve up the data, as it did processing that data. With an SSD's lower latency, the CPU was now able to get the data it needed far more quickly, which means it can spend all its time processing instead of some of its time waiting - and thanks to the SSD, that processing time is now the bottleneck.
 
Can someone clarify why the fastest SSD don't have impact on gaming load time ?

I and my wife play Sims 3 with all expansions pack (33.5GB) plus tons of custom contents (56.6GB) So that is already close to 100GB. Will NVME SSD really improve experience from normal SATA SSD in these kind of game ? because my SSD in the sig still take around 3 minute to load very large house (HDD can take 5-7 minute).

I have been test with i7-3770K @ 5.3Ghz 4 years ago and try to measure scaling from 2.5Ghz , 3Ghz , 3.5Ghz , 4Ghz , 4.5Ghz , 5Ghz , 5.3Ghz and found good scaling (higher Ghz = Shorter loading time). Not sure if this proof that CPU is a bottleneck rather than storage.

You may want to be running Windows 7 or 10 on 64bits on that system with at least 16Gb of DDR3 memory, preferably 32. From name of the CPU I can tell it's quite an old Core i7 from the 3rd generation, making it capable of supporting at most 32Gb of RAM.

Also, with all that data on a SSD doing lots of loading, reading and some writing, you will want to do some trimming on it at least monthly. Writing, deleting, writing over deleted info on SSD will lead to severe slowdowns in time. Especially if the SSD is more than half full.
 
You may want to be running Windows 7 or 10 on 64bits on that system with at least 16Gb of DDR3 memory, preferably 32. From name of the CPU I can tell it's quite an old Core i7 from the 3rd generation, making it capable of supporting at most 32Gb of RAM.

Also, with all that data on a SSD doing lots of loading, reading and some writing, you will want to do some trimming on it at least monthly. Writing, deleting, writing over deleted info on SSD will lead to severe slowdowns in time. Especially if the SSD is more than half full.

Sold that cpu long time ago. And Sims 3 is 32 bit game so it can't take advantage from huge memory.
 
Back
Top