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 - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.
The short duration and low write volume of our Light test don't help the Toshiba TR200 look any better than it did on the harder ATSB tests. The average data rates from the TR200s when the test is run on an empty drive are slower than most other SSDs when completely full. The HP S700 still does worse when full, as does the 256GB ADATA SU800. The Samsung 850 EVO is about twice as fast overall on the Light test.
The average latency of the TR200s on the Light test falls well outside the normally narrow range. A few other drives have exceptionally high latency when the test is run on a full drive, but otherwise nothing comes close to the TR200. By contrast, the 99th percentile latency of the TR200 is only modestly worse than other low-end drives, and the TR200 doesn't get massively worse when it is full.
The TR200 has some of the highest average read latency scores on the Light test, but it's not a serious outlier at any capacity. The average write latency is where the TR200's problems lie, as even the fastest 960GB model has twice the write latency of the next slowest drive.
The 99th percentile read latency scores of the TR200 are a modest improvement over its predecessors, and in line with contemporary competitors. The 99th percentile write latency is worse than the TR150 but not high enough to be a problem on this light workload.
The DRAMless SSDs are again the most energy-efficient despite their lower overall performance. The TR200 loses to the HP S700 when the test is run on an empty drive, but the TR200 takes a clear lead when the drives are full, using less than three quarters the energy of the next most efficient SATA drive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
50 Comments
View All Comments
theniller - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Why is this shit still a thing? The process node is there the stacking is there. Where is my 500 GB slc drive?lilmoe - Thursday, October 12, 2017 - link
IKRI already pay double for my drives work 50% over provisioning. SLC would cost me the same yet dramatically improve QD1 performance and endurance.
And they say there's no market for that. BS.
cekim - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Engineering you might expect from a company going out of business during the biggest supply shortage we've seen in PC parts in quite some time. Why god why?Billy Tallis - Thursday, October 12, 2017 - link
Toshiba's NAND division isn't going out of business; it's thriving. The nuclear power part of Toshiba is just failing so hard that Toshiba as a whole is deeply in the red.mapesdhs - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Way slower and more expensive than an 850 EVO was 2 years ago. *yawn* This race to the bottom re performance/endurance is annoying.I wish the charts would include a couple of older models so so we can really see whether this tech has actually moved on or not, eg. an 840 Pro (wonderful MLC), Vector, Vertex4, Neutron GTX - all of these were already being bottlenecked by the SATA3 limit when the 840 Pro was reviewed on AT 5 years ago. Are these Toshiba models any better than what Samsung/OCZ was back then? The last time I saw it included, the Vector inparticular still looked pretty good. As long as this lack of performance/endurance continues, I just keep hunting for lightly used 840 Pros, etc. Bagged another 256GB recently for 51 UKP.
I miss the days when the 850 EVO 250GB was 53 UKP, everything has become so expensive since then, and not just SSDs. Prices of most RAM types has doubled.
Billy Tallis - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
I've tested almost all of the older SSDs that I have on hand. Some of the older ones have died, or been transferred to other AT editors for use as boot drives. There are a few old drives I have in active use on various systems that I can clone then run through the test suite (a SandForce drive, a Crucial MX100, a Samsung 840 Pro) when time permits. Fortunately, my testing backlog is almost gone, so I may be able to get some of those drives added to the Bench database later this month.mapesdhs - Friday, October 13, 2017 - link
That would be great Billy, thanks!! 8)Btw, have you seen the article on techreport where they tested a bunch of SSDs to death? The 840 Pro was the final one to go, after it had written an astonishing 2.4PB. IIRC I can't link to other sites directly here, so just search for, "The SSD Endurance Experiment: They're all dead", the piece is written by Geoff Gasior.
artifex - Thursday, October 19, 2017 - link
I know an anecdote is not data, but my Samsung 830, 128GB is still going after about 5 years. Magician says it's pushed 20TB. It's actually still my gaming OS drive, too.Question, though: how come I hear nothing about the 750s, now? Did that line get dropped quickly? I got one in a sale last year, and I hope they're not terrible.
yifu - Monday, November 20, 2017 - link
is this the most power efficient SSD in the market today? I have missed the BX100, Now I can not find it anymore.