The Toshiba TR200 3D NAND SSD Review: One Step Forward, One Step Back
by Billy Tallis on October 11, 2017 7:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
All three capacities of the Toshiba TR200 are at the bottom of the chart for average data rate on the Heavy test, falling just below their predecessors. However, the TR200 is somewhat redeemed by retaining a lot of its performance even when full. In that case, the TR200 compares favorably against the HP S700 (the other DRAMless TLC SSD on the graph), and against the smaller capacities of the ADATA SU800.
The average latency of the TR200 on the Heavy test is quite high for all capacities and whether the test is run on a full or empty drive. However, several other drives fare much worse when full.
When considering the 99th percentile latency, the 240GB TR200 stands out as having very poor QoS whether or not it is filled before running the Heavy test. The larger two models of the TR200 have rather high 99th percentile latencies, but don't fall too far outside the normal range. HP's S700 performs slightly worse when full, but even the 250GB model has decent control over latency when the test is run on an empty drive.
The average read and write latencies for the TR200 on the Heavy test stand out from the crowd. They're all slow, whether or not the drive is filled before running the test. There's not much variation between capacities and for both reads and writes the latencies are at least twice as high as most of the current competition. For reads, the TR200 is even worse than the ADATA SU800 and HP S700 at their worst, while for writes those drives have far higher latencies when full than the TR200.
The 99th percentile read latencies of the TR200 are on the high side, but are not even twice as high as the best MLC drives, when the test is run on an empty drive. The smaller TR200s do a bit worse when the drive starts out full, but so do many other budget SSDs, and the 960GB model is barely affected. On the write side of things, there's no contest. The 99th percentile write latencies of the 480GB and 960GB TR200 are almost a third of a second. The 240GB model's 99th percentile latency is half as bad, but it's still unprecedented among recent models to see latency that bad even when the test is run on an empty drive.
When the Heavy test is run on an empty drive, the TR200 doesn't break any energy efficiency records, but it is competitive with some of the most efficient drives. When the drives are full, the TR200 takes the lead, thanks to the relatively small performance drop they show in that scenario. The TR200 has managed to cut energy use almost in half compared to its predecessors.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
DanNeely - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
in other news the SATA3 bottleneck is still the SATA3 bottleneck.Faster drives are all PCIe based, so the odds of a SATA4 bumping it up again anytime soon are remote; especially since the SATA API/etc are a poor fit for SSDs and hurt performance a bit. If spinning rust remains relevant long enough for SATA to bottleneck again we might see a new standard revision in a few years; but by then the consumer SSD market will probably be all sticks.
Lord of the Bored - Thursday, October 12, 2017 - link
I honestly can't see hard disks going away completely any time soon. They're still much slower than flash, but flash isn't going to challenge them on the price per byte angle any time soon. 'S why I'm not pure silicon: I have an actual disk for data storage(particularly video files).The price advantage ALSO keeps them shipping in laptops, but the things going into lower-end laptops aren't exactly winning any races.
That said, the pressure for faster hard disks has definitely let up in the years since the first solid-state drives shipped. People trust a lot more of their data to remote servers than they did back then.
The main thing driving capacity increases at this point is commercial users(all that server-side storage moves the demands out of the home), so I don't see SATA3 being a hard disk bottleneck any time soon either. SAS may need an update at some point, though.
dave_the_nerd - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
That's the SATA3 bottleneck. If you want faster, you get a PCI-E drive.sonny73n - Thursday, October 12, 2017 - link
PCI-E will be the bottleneck soon in the future. For now, SATA3 serve me just fine. They don't slow my gaming or anything. Unless I transfer back and forth 10TB of my videos collection from one SATA3 drive to another every day, I don't see a reason to waste my money on soon-to-be obsolete tech.Billy Tallis - Thursday, October 12, 2017 - link
Having drives that can saturate a PCIe link doesn't mean that the PCIe link will be a meaningful bottleneck. We're getting to the point where latency matters far more than throughput (ie. flash vs. 3D XPoint), and aside from that, storage is usually less of a bottleneck than CPU and network and other components.jabber - Friday, October 13, 2017 - link
Indeed, the effect of a 200MB bit of software loading up on a 550 MBps SATA SSD and a 3000MBps NVME SSD are to all intents, identical to the human eye. Never has the promise of a 6 times jump in performance actually given so little.dromoxen - Tuesday, October 17, 2017 - link
550/540 IS the max of SATA 3 ssds .. the rest is lost in overhead and inefficiencys. Just like usb2 vs usb3 should be ten times faster , best I've ever got is 4x faster.heavy soil - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
The speed limit is SATA, the only way to be faster is PCIe (or I guess SAS).What has improved on the good SATA SSDs is the speed they deal with big queues, and coping with heavy writing too.
rocky12345 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Thanks for the look at the drive.So this is what dram less drives perform like? All I got to say is ouch those were some bad numbers from this drive. I have the Samsung EVO 850 Pro 512GB Sata drive still and my drive walks circles around this drive in every aspect. Yes my drive cost me a bit more but I have had it for like 2 years now and I am sure the cost of my drive has come down close to what this Toshiba drive now costs. If dram less drives perform like this then the cost to buy into them should be a lot lower than the higher end drives cost. Thanks again for the review your testing here is not flawed but this drive sure is.
Janis2017 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
That was stupid to give away 90 euro for product who only works 10 years 750evoI hope samsung firmware is ok. I dont need write protected drive.
I dont haw money for one more.