Crucial's Expected Performance Numbers for T700 Gen 5 SSD Leaked

[btarunr]

Over the weekend, we got the first previews of the upcoming Crucial T700 M.2 NVMe Gen 5 SSD, the company's return to the high-end client SSD segment. The drive combines a Phison E26-series controller with the latest-generation (possibly 232-layer) 3D TLC NAND flash, and DDR4 DRAM cache, both made at home by Micron Technology. A key slide from the "Previewers Guide" got leaked to the web, which reveals the company's own performance numbers for the drive.

The Crucial T700 comes in 1 TB, 2 TB, and 4 TB variants, which differ in numbers. The 1 TB variant offers up to 11500 MB/s sequential reads, with up to 8500 MB/s sequential writes, up to 1.2 million IOPS 4K random reads, and up to 1.5 million IOPS 4K random writes, along with an endurance rating of 800 TBW. The 2 TB and 4 TB variants offer identical performance—up to 12000 MB/s sequential reads with up to 11000 MB/s sequential writes, up to 1.5 million IOPS random reads/writes. The 2 TB variant offers 1,200 TBW endurance, and the 4 TB variant does 2,400 TBW. Crucial is expected to launch the T700 in May 2023.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Bwaze]

But in real world operation in most results people care about (OS start, game and application load times) barely faster than SATA drives.

 

[Garrus]

they hide the actual random read 4k speed behind IOPS because they don't want you to realize there's no advantage at all, same speed as the old drives

 

[watzupken]

But in real world operation in most results people care about (OS start, game and application load times) barely faster than SATA drives.

It is not completely without benefits. When installing or transferring big files, the higher seq speed helps. But when it comes to responsiveness, the latencies of these NVME SSDs are indeed no better than SATA3 SSDs.

 

[WonkoTheSaneUK]

Linus posted a video review yesterday

 

[enb141]

The only ones that have the best performance are the defunct intel optane, but the price was so high that people still prefer this such of SSDs

 

[TheDeeGee]

Linus posted a video review yesterday

Proves Gen4 is all you need for the coming years, and have normal heatsinks.

 

[Bwaze]

Not unless they artificially limit DirectStorage to PCIe 5.0 drives But at this rate of adoption even these drives will be obsolete until it becomes widely adopted.

 

[WonkoTheSaneUK]

The only ones that have the best performance are the defunct intel optane, but the price was so high that people still prefer this such of SSDs

I used the 280GB PCIe version for several years, after winning one as a door prize at the Star Citizen convention in Frankfurt in 2017 (Intel sponsored the event to launch the drive).

 

[Wirko]

Maybe, just maybe, the next generation of desktop CPUs and chipsets will support more lane splitting to PCIe 5.0 x2. That's where gen 5 SSDs would come in handy.

 

[bonehead123]

I seem to recall some other mfgr announce a gen5 drive just last week or so that they claimed ran at just shy of 15k/MB/s ?

If so, then this one is soooo "slow".....hehehe

But I agree with the other posts so far, the real-world numbers that would REALLY matter are no better than gen 3 & 4 drives, so far anyways....

 

[chrcoluk]

Not unless they artificially limit DirectStorage to PCIe 5.0 drives But at this rate of adoption even these drives will be obsolete until it becomes widely adopted.

It will be interesting to see if that happens, all tests I have seen is no difference of note between gen 4 and 5 for directstorage, gen 3 is a wider gap but close enough that it wont be noticeable by the end user.

Note though these tests were done by different drives, they didnt use a gen 5 drive in gen 4 or gen 3 board so not a proper test.

 

[enb141]

I used the 280GB PCIe version for several years, after winning one as a door prize at the Star Citizen convention in Frankfurt in 2017 (Intel sponsored the event to launch the drive).

I got the 480 GB PCIe version, now I got the P5800x, this is a monster, expensive but smokes all current SSDs.

 

[Minus Infinity]

The only ones that have the best performance are the defunct intel optane, but the price was so high that people still prefer this such of SSDs

Optane was a financial disaster for Intel, they lost $7 billion on it. The way it was marketed too was a disaster, promoting it as a cache drive wellm after many people had already gone to regular ssd's and didn't need a very expensive cache drive.

I hear though that Kioxia is working on an Optane like replacement they say is more cost effective called XL-FLASH storage class memory. Also and I quote from a news story "In the future, it may also be possible to apply the product using Compute Express Link," (CXL) states Kioxia's announcement. That is a reasonably big deal, because CXL looks a lot like the future of pooled memory and composable architectures."

 

[enb141]

Optane was a financial disaster for Intel, they lost $7 billion on it. The way it was marketed too was a disaster, promoting it as a cache drive wellm after many people had already gone to regular ssd's and didn't need a very expensive cache drive.

I hear though that Kioxia is working on an Optane like replacement they say is more cost effective called XL-FLASH storage class memory. Also and I quote from a news story "In the future, it may also be possible to apply the product using Compute Express Link," (CXL) states Kioxia's announcement. That is a reasonably big deal, because CXL looks a lot like the future of pooled memory and composable architectures."

Hopefully whatever Kioxia will provide rocks and hopefully doesn't becomes a niche as some of those RAM based Disks.

 

[trsttte]

Not unless they artificially limit DirectStorage to PCIe 5.0 drives But at this rate of adoption even these drives will be obsolete until it becomes widely adopted.

They won't and they can't if they want any kind of adoption to happen.

 

[Wirko]

Optane was a financial disaster for Intel, they lost $7 billion on it. The way it was marketed too was a disaster, promoting it as a cache drive wellm after many people had already gone to regular ssd's and didn't need a very expensive cache drive.

Optane had to compete against flash and DRAM at the same time, and it lost (at least) to DRAM. It was meant to be a cheaper alternative to RAM but never became considerably cheaper, and who needs non-volatile working memory in the datacentre where you can't afford to lose power anyeay?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Product page is live-ish.

Crucial T700 1TB PCIe Gen5 NVMe M.2 SSD with heatsink | CT1000T700SSD5 | Crucial.com

Buy Crucial T700 1TB PCIe Gen5 NVMe M.2 SSD with heatsink CT1000T700SSD5. FREE US Delivery, guaranteed 100% compatibility when ordering using our online tools.

www.crucial.com

 

[Chris_Ramseyer]

they hide the actual random read 4k speed behind IOPS because they don't want you to realize there's no advantage at all, same speed as the old drives

IOPS is the proper way to talk about 4K random performance. For the enthusiast market, that changed with the popularity of CrystalDiskMark and reviewers that didn't post the screenshot of the IOPS page (it is a simple button to switch between throughput (MB/s) and IOPS. There isn't any mask, it is a simple conversion. 104 MB/s at 4KB blocks is roughly 25,000 IOPS for QD1 random read.

IOPS, MB/s, GB/day Converter - WintelGuy.com

IOPS, MB/s, GB/day Converter - performs conversion between IOPS, MB/s, and GB/day units

wintelguy.com

1.5M IOPS is 6144MB/s
2M IOPS is 8192MB/s

 

[Garrus]

IOPS is the proper way to talk about 4K random performance. For the enthusiast market, that changed with the popularity of CrystalDiskMark and reviewers that didn't post the screenshot of the IOPS page (it is a simple button to switch between throughput (MB/s) and IOPS. There isn't any mask, it is a simple conversion. 104 MB/s at 4KB blocks is roughly 25,000 IOPS for QD1 random read.

IOPS, MB/s, GB/day Converter - WintelGuy.com

IOPS, MB/s, GB/day Converter - performs conversion between IOPS, MB/s, and GB/day units

wintelguy.com

1.5M IOPS is 6144MB/s
2M IOPS is 8192MB/s

that's nonsense, it isn't the "proper" way, the MB/s is the actual useful metric