Crucial’s recent announcement of its new P5 Plus is slated to come out in early August 2021. This lightning-fast SSD has its sights set on competing with top-performing SSDs like the Samsung 980 Pro. But does Crucial have what it takes to square up against the likes of Samsung with this SSD? Well, recent announcements and leaked benchmarks point towards that answer being yes. This guide will take a look at what the new P5 Plus is bringing to the table as well as see if it will be a better value deal over the Samsung 980 Pro.

 Read and Write Speeds – P5 Plus

The new P5 Plus ekes out ahead with slightly better read and write speeds on its lower-capacity models. It is slated to handle 6,600 MBps read and 5,000 MBps write. In comparison, the Samsung 980 Pro has more variance in terms of read and write speeds. Depending on the storage size, this SSD boasts read speeds ranging from 6,400 MBps to 7,000 MBps and write speeds between 2,700 MBps and 5,100 MBps. 

To make it clearer, the breakdown of speeds for the 980 Pro goes as follows:

• 250GB – 6,400 MBps read & 2,700 MBps write
• 500Gb – 6,900 Mbps read & 5,000 MBps write
• 1TB – 7,000 MBps read & 5,000 MBps write
• 2TB – 7,000 MBps read & 5,100 MBPs write

Meanwhile, the Crucial P5 Plus offers the same speeds listed above across every storage size. If that changes with the launch in a few short days, that information will be updated as it is released. Additionally, the Crucial P5 Plus has only been announced in 500GB, 1TB, and 2TB models with no 250GB offering as of the time of writing this article. While the 980 Pro offers a wider range of speeds, the more consistent speeds of the P5 Plus make it an easier option for consumers.

Endurance (TBW) – Tie

The endurance of an SSD is determined by how much data it can read/write before it reaches a point of possible failure. This is abbreviated as “TBW” or “Terabytes Written.” The P5 Plus has the following ratings:

• 500GB – 300 TBW
• 1TB – 600 TBW
• 2TB – 1,200 TBW

In comparison, the 980 Pro ratings go like this:

• 250GB – 150 TBW
• 500GB – 300TBW
• 1TB – 600TB
• 2TB- 1,200 TBW

As you can see, the two SSDs offer identical metrics across the board. You can expect both of these mid-range SSDs to last for similar lengths of time before you start noticing failures. Additionally, both SSDs have similar 5-year manufacturer warranties that cover failure from regular usage.

Price – P5 Plus

With the Crucial P5 Plus not being officially released yet, the page for the 1TB model isn’t currently live and doesn’t show a prospective price. So far, the 500GB model is set at $107.99 while the 2TB sits at $367.99. These prices are competitive and set the P5 Plus as the more budget-friendly option between the two. The 980 Pro is $119 for a 500GB model and $409 for a 2TB model. As long as the price for the upcoming 1TB model of the P5 Plus stays similar to the other offerings, it is set to be a great value SSD.

Verdict – P5 Plus

It’s a tight competition between the P5 Plus and the 980 Pro. Either option will be great in your system as long as you can get a decent deal. But, overall, the P5 Plus offers a better price and more consistent speeds. For those reasons, I recommend picking one up if you’re in the market for a mid-range SSD for your system. If you’re looking for a more comprehensive PC upgrade, check out our handy system builder for tailored parts based on budget and use case here.

The post Crucial P5 Plus vs Samsung 980 Pro: Which Is Best? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

NVMe SSDs have not only become significantly faster  with the technological advancements tied to the fourth generation of PCI Express lanes  but they have also become cheaper in price; currently rivaling the cost of SATA III SSDs for the M.2 form factor. But does this mean that SATA III hard drives can be counted-out as antiquated storage units of a former epoch, or do they still hold value against their successors? 

Before we tackle this question, lets specify the differences between the various NVMe interfaces that can be found in modern SSDs. These can be separated mainly into two categories: PCIe Gen 3, and PCIe Gen 4 models. With Intels latest 11th generation CPUs, all current-gen processors and motherboards come with PCIe 4.0 compatibility… but new PCIe 3.0 models are still being released. The reason for this is twofold: PCIe 3.0 SSDs are less powerful in transfer speeds, but are still powerful enough to run applications with a level responsiveness of responsiveness that rivals their Gen 4 counterparts, and therefore have great value for home use and gaming (as their prices are, of course, cheaper than PCIe 4.0 hard drives). Also, PCIe 4.0 lanes are backwards compatible with PCIe Gen 3 SSDs, so the latter drives can still be used even with the latest X570 or Z590 motherboards. It must be mentioned that when we stated that NVMe SSDs are similar in price with M.2 SATA III SSDs, we refer to 3rd generation of PCIe compatible hard drives. 

Now, if youre wondering whether or not you should opt for either an NVMe or a SATA hard drive, for a new storage upgrade, this article will detail the differences between the two interfaces, and suggest which is the better purchase depending on the use or setup. 

Form Factor

First and foremost, we have the different form factors that these SSDs are compatible with. SATA III SSDs can mainly be found in 2.5-inch and M.2 form factors, whereas NVMe SSDs are mostly sold in an M.2 form. 2.5-inch NVMe drives do exist  in what is called the U.2 form factor but are mainly used for enterprise applications, and are far more expensive than their M.2 counterparts. Additionally, both SATA III and NVMe SSDs can be plugged into a hard drive enclosure that can be used as an external hard drive. This will typically require a USB 3.0 Type-A connection for SATA drives, and a Type-C connection for NVMe drives. 

Motherboard Slots

Another important aspect to take into consideration, which ties to the form factor of these hard drives, are the available slots that a motherboard has to accommodate these SSDs. Typically, motherboards will provide two-to-three M.2 slots, though some less expensive or smaller motherboards can come with just a single one. On the other hand, motherboards will have anywhere between four and ten SATA III slots  though six is the typical number of available sockets.  In other words, chances are that you will have more available SATA III slots than you do M.2 slots; which is an inherent advantage for the former interface. 

Data Transfer & Applications

When it comes to an SSDs overall performance, a clear distinction should be made between data transfer rates, and application load times & responsiveness.

Typical SATA III read and write speeds range between 450 to 550 MB/s, whereas PCIe 3.0 NVMe speeds range anywhere between 1,000 MB/s to 3,500 MB/s  depending on the model and how recent it is. With double the throughput of its previous generation, PCIe 4.0 compatible SSDs can reach up to 7,000 MB/s read and 6,900 MB/s write speeds.  

But if you like the vast majority of users will rarely carry out large file transfers, the difference between SATA and NVMe drives is almost negligible. A fast and responsive SSD to house gaming, desktop applications, and an operating system does need excessively fast transfer speeds. An example to prove this statement, at least when it comes to game loading times, is the Crucial MX500 SATA III SSD, which actually loaded the Final Fantasy XIV benchmark faster than Gen 3 NVMe drives like the Crucial P1 or the Samsung 970 EVO. Even when comparing the MX500 to what is arguably the best PCIe Gen 3 NVMe SSD: the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro, we see that PCMark 8 tests (trace-based benchmarks that simulate Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suit, WoW, and Battlefield 3) carried out by Toms Hardware show a difference in scores of only 2.8% between the two SSDs. The difference grows significantly when it comes to PCIe Gen 4 drives, like the Samsung 980 Pro, to about 12.8% to 17.9%  but the price difference is also substantial. Hence, when it comes strictly to gaming and general productivity, SATA SSDs still do hold their own, even against this much newer and more powerful technology. 

Price

Last, but not least, we have the relative prices of these storage units, which will ultimately determine their value. As mentioned previously, SATA SSDs now have similar prices to their M.2 NVMe counterparts. An M.2 Crucial MX500 (1TB), for example, currently costs $114, while a 1 TB Intel 665p M.2 SSD can be found for $109, and the more powerful ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro (1TB) can be purchased for just $119. Unsurprisingly, PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSDs are far more expensive; with the Samsung 980 Pro costing $199 for 1 TB, and the WD Black SN850 being similarly priced at $195. That being said, 2.5-inch SATA SSDs can be found for as low as $89, like the 1 TB Crucial MX500. 

Verdict

To answer the initial question of this article  on whether or not SATA III SSDs are still a worthwhile purchase versus their NVMe counterparts  the answer is: it really depends on the purpose tied to their use, and the limitations of the setup that will house them.  

If you have M.2 slots to spare, then the best overall option would currently be a PCIe 3.0 NVMe drive, like the aforementioned XPG SX8200 Pro or the Intel 665p. If you are looking to save the M.2 slots of your motherboard until PCIe Gen 4 SSDs drop in price, or if you are looking for an SSD on a budget, you cannot go wrong with the 2.5 SATA Crucial MX500 SSD. Especially for gamers and light PC users, the difference between SATA and NVMe (3.0) drives will hardly be noticeable and saving 25% from the purchase of any hardware component is always sweet. 

The exception to this would be the transferring of large files (or large amounts of files) on a regular basis. Because of the huge difference in sequential read and write speeds, an NVMe drive is definitely the way to go for this mode of usage. PCIe 4.0 drives like the Samsung 980 Pro or the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus are incredibly fast storage units for workstation builds, making them value-rich options for these types of setups. 

The post NVMe VS SATA: Which SSD is Best For You? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

While PCIe 4.0 compatible SSDs are not just gaining steam, but are even dropping in price, Intel – and now Samsung – have recently announced the release of a brand-new NVMe SSD… with a PCIe 3.0 bus type. 

Of course, PCIe Gen 3 SSDs are still quite popular, especially given the recent price drops that have put them within an almost identical cost-range to their SATA III SSD equivalents. Given that PCIe 4.0 storage drives still need a couple of years to reach a cost that is comparable to today’s PCIe 3.0 storage drives, there are many potential customers that hard drive manufacturers can attract with this previous generation PCI Express lane technology.

The new Samsung SSD model that just released is the Samsung 980. This SSD is absent of any DRAM, while it makes use of the new Samsung in-house Pablo controller, a higher-end 128-layer 3D TLC NAND flash type, and Samsung’s new and improved Intelligent TurboWrite 2.0: a feature that enhances sustained transfer speed performance by using a larger, dynamic, SLC (Single-Level Cell) buffer storage within the SSDs architecture.

So how does the Samsung 980 compare with Samsung’s own higher-end PCIe 4.0 compatible SSD, the Samsung 980 Pro? Is the latter model worth the extra investment? Let’s check their specifications and real-world benchmarks and see whether or not this newly released hard drive is a worthy purchase.

Specifications

Model	Samsung 980 Pro	Samsung 980
Design
Storage Sizes	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB
Sequential Read	6,400 MB/s, 6,900 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s	2,900 MB/s, 3,100 MB/s, 3,500 MB/s,
Sequential Write	2,700 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,100 MB/s	1,300 MB/s, 2,600 MB/s, 3,000 MB/s
4KB Random Read	500,000 IOPS, 800,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS	230,000 IOPS, 400,000 IOPS, 500,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	600,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS	320,000 IOPS, 470,000 IOPS, 480,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.3c	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.4
Controller	Samsung Elpis	Samsung Pablo
NAND Type	Samsung 128L 3D TLC	Samsung 128L 3D TLC
TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$90, $150, $230, $430	$50, $70, $130
Availability	Amazon.com	Amazon.com

The Samsung 980 Pro includes a 2 TB storage size, missing from the 980, and its sequential read speeds are at least double that of its PCIe Gen 3 cousin. Sequential write speeds are also faster, with the difference ranging from 66% to 107%, depending on the storage size. Its 4K random read and write speeds also seem to prove PCIe 4.0’s promise of double throughput, surpassing the 980’s advertised metrics by up to 118%.

The V-NAND flash type and endurance levels are identical for both models, and though the 150 to 600 Terabytes Written (TBW) values are more than enough for an SSD marketed for everyday PC builds and gamers, these metrics may be insufficient for higher-end workstation setups that transfer large amounts of files on a daily basis – and this is the key demographic of the more expensive Samsung 980 Pro model. Both 980 and 980 Pro are backed by Samsung’s 5-year warranty.

In terms of price, we see that the Samsung 980 Pro is already experiencing price cuts ranging from 12% to 20% (at its 500 GB, and above, storage sizes) – and the more the PCIe Gen 4 SSDs are discounted, the more their PCIe Gen 3 equivalents will also have to have their prices reduced. Currently, the 1 TB Samsung 980 Pro model costs $130, meaning that the Samsung 980 Pro is 54% more expensive. Is the 980 Pro worth this extra cost? Let’s check the benchmarks and find out.

Benchmarks

Testing does prove that the peak sequential read and write speeds of the 980 Pro can double the speeds of even some of the best PCIe Gen 3 compatible SSDs the market has to offer, including the Samsung 980. Of course, when it comes to real world applications, the differences are not as impressive, though the Samsung 980 Pro still outperforms the 980 by upwards of 46% to 57%.

Peak 4K random read and write speeds is where the 980 Pro disappoints, only reaching 50% to 60% of its promised advertised specifications. It is here that it only leads the Samsung 980 by 21% and 25% respectively. Also, when it comes to gaming applications, the difference in loading times is only 3%; which is to be expected to some degree, as even SATA III SSDs have been show to rival, or even surpass, the speeds of NVMe storage drives in this matter.

When it comes to trace-based benchmark applications, like PCMark 10, the Samsung 980 Pro proves to be the more responsive hard drive, but not by a significant margin. The PCMark10 Quick System score, which is meant to simulate more common, less hardware-intensive, applications, and the Full System score, which is used to rate performance for higher-end usage, show the Samsung 980 Pro outscoring the 980 by 18% for the former, but only by 9% for the latter.

One last thing to mention is that the Samsung 980 Pro consumes only 7% more energy than the 980, and, considering that the former outperforms the latter by 20% to 50% in transfer speeds, we can say confidently say that the Samsung 980 Pro is far more power efficient than the 980.

Verdict

For the vast majority of users – including those looking for an SSD for browsing, general productivity, content creation, or gaming – the Samsung 980 Pro still does not justify its price versus other, cheaper, PCIe 3.0 bus-type storage drives. The Samsung 980, on the other hand, provides great overall value, as it has respectable transfer speeds and it proves to be very responsive for all types of applications. 

Of course, both these Samsung models do have some serious competition for their respective targeted audience, like the Sabrent Rocket or the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro for the Samsung 980, and the Western Digital Black SN850 or the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus for the Samsung 980 Pro, but they are still both respectable options that come with the quality and reliability that Samsung is known for when it comes to their SSD storage options.

The post Samsung 980 vs 980 Pro: What Are The Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

Surprisingly enough, Samsung recently released a brand-new PCIe generation 3.0 NVMe SSD, named the Samsung 980. This storage drive is marketed for home PC users, as well as for general productivity and gaming. It features a no-DRAM design, a newer Samsung Pablo controller, and a two-plane, 128-layer, V6 V-NAND TLC; similar to the one found in their high-end PCIe 4.0 Samsung 980 Pro model.

Given that third generation PCIe lanes are on their way out – as Intel is also set to provide PCIe 4.0 support with their soon to be released Comet Lake-S CPUs – at first glance it does seem quite strange that companies are still releasing new SSD models (Intel also just came out with the 670p NVMe SSD), especially given the fact that the market is already oversaturated with PCIe 3.0 storage drives.

So how does the Samsung 980 compare to other, equivalent, Gen 3 PCIe Samsung models, like the popular Samsung 970 EVO Plus? The 980, at launch, does have a cheaper price tag than the 970 EVO Plus, but does it display enough value to be preferred over its predecessors?

To find out, we will compare the advertised specifications, as well as real-world benchmarks for both these models, in order to reach a verdict on which storage drive better deserves a spot in your build.

Specifications

Model	Samsung 970 EVO Plus	Samsung 980
Design
Storage Sizes	250 GB, 500 GB, 1TB, 2 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB
Sequential Read	3,500 MB/s	2,900 MB/s, 3,100 MB/s, 3,500 MB/s,
Sequential Write	2,300 MB/s, 3,200 MB/s, 3,300 MB/s, 3,300 MB/s	1,300 MB/s, 2,600 MB/s, 3,000 MB/s
4KB Random Read	250,000 IOPS, 480,000 IOPS, 600,000 IOPS, 620,000 IOPS	230,000 IOPS, 400,000 IOPS, 500,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	550,000 IOPS, 550,000 IOPS, 550,000 IOPS, 560,000 IOPS	320,000 IOPS, 470,000 IOPS, 480,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3	PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.4
Controller	Samsung Phoenix	Samsung Pablo
NAND Type	Samsung 92L 3D TLC	Samsung 128L 3D TLC
Endurance	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1,200 TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$90, $130, $250, $380	$50, $70, $130
Availability	Amazon.com	Amazon.com

First off, we see that the Samsung 980 does not yet have a 2 TB storage size, which the 970 EVO Plus does. The sequential read and write speeds of the two SSDs are similar for their 1 TB storage size, though the 250 GB and 500 GB 980 units fall behind to the 970 EVO Plus by 21% & 77%, and 13% & 23%, respectively. In terms of 4K random read and write speeds, all 980 variants are outdone by the 970 EVO Plus, which pulls ahead by anywhere between 15% and 20%.

Endurance ratings are identical, with both models featuring a respectable 150, 300, and 600 Terabyte Written (TBW) value; going from lower to higher storage sizes. All variants are backed by Samsung’s 5-year warranty.

One more thing to mention is that the Samsung 980 comes with an upgraded Intelligent TurboWrite 2.0 feature, which provides enhanced sustained performance by a larger, and dynamic, SLC (Single-Level Cell) buffer storage area inside the SSD. 

To see how well this feature, together with the upgraded 128-layer TLC, fare against the Samsung 970 EVO Plus’s setup, let’s move on to compare their real-world benchmarks.

Benchmarks

Peak sequential read speeds are just about identical, though the 980 does fall behind in peak sequential write speed by 18%. This advantage, however, drops down to just 1.5% when it comes to real world applications; like performing a 50 GB transfer of files. The 970 EVO Plus and the 980 trade blows in 4K random read and write speeds, with the 980 performing 8% better in the former metric, while the 970 EVO Plus is 21% faster in the latter.

When it comes to the drive’s responsiveness, when running common applications, the 980 reigns supreme over the 970 EVO Plus, and it does so by a significant margin. The results for the PCMark 10 trace-test show the 980 scoring a whopping 77% higher result in the Quick System test – meant to simulate commonly used browsing and productivity applications, including games – while it also scored 47% higher in the more demanding Full System test, as well.

One last thing to mention is that the Samsung 980 is a far more energy efficient SSD, consuming 24% less power on average when compared to the 970 EVO Plus. 

Verdict

So, is the 970 EVO Plus worth its 24% higher price tag, versus the new Samsung 980? Not quite. The Samsung 980 proves to be far more responsive, in regards to processing applications, even if it falls slightly behind (less than 10%) in real-world sequential read and write speed metrics. 

Of course, it must be mentioned, that in the $130 price range that the Samsung 980 launched, there are several other options that perform equally, or even better than the 980 – like the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro, or even the Sabrent Rocket (at least when it comes to PCMark10 Quick System scores). For a DRAMless SSD, the Samsung 980 is quite expensive; but if its price does drop – as it inevitably will, since PCIe 4.0 SSDs are also becoming more affordable – it is a great storage unit with a well-balanced level of overall performance, and the quality and reliability that all SSDs with Samsung’s name include.

If the choice is to be made strictly between the Samsung 980 and the 970 EVO Plus, the 980 is the superior SSD model.

The post Samsung 980 vs 970 EVO Plus: What Are The Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

If you, too, are looking to take advantage of the recent price drops for the mid-to-high-end PCIe 3.0 NVMe SSD models, now that the transition to PCIe 4.0 lanes is taking place, then few are the options that really do provide the best value for their price. For gamers, light photo or video editing, and general browsing or productivity applications, these SSDs are ideal; as they offer high performance at a reasonable price.

Two such models are the Sabrent Rocket, and Samsung’s own 970 EVO Plus. Given that the 970 EVO Plus has seen a 34% price decrease, when compared to its initial MSRP, makes now a great time to invest in this SSD for your next build – or even as an upgrade to an existing setup. But how does the 970 EVO Plus perform in comparison to the Sabrent Rocket? Does it justify its price, or does Sabrent offer more value at a lower cost? To answer these questions, we will compare both options, in terms of manufacturer specifications and real-world benchmarks, and reach a verdict on which SSD we recommend as the best option for your next storage purchase.

Specification

Model	Sabrent Rocket	Samsung 970 EVO Plus
Design
Storage Sizes	256 GB, 512 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB, 4 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1TB, 2 TB
Sequential Read	3,100 MB/s, 3,400 MB/s, 3,400 MB/s, 3,400 MB/s, 3,450 MB/s	3,500 MB/s
Sequential Write	1,050 MB/s, 2,000 MB/s, 3,000 MB/s, 2,700 MB/s, 3,000 MB/s	2,300 MB/s, 3,200 MB/s, 3,300 MB/s, 3,300 MB/s
4KB Random Read	167,000 IOPS, 357,000 IOPS, 650,000 IOPS, 490,000 IOPS, 580,000 IOPS	250,000 IOPS, 480,000 IOPS, 600,000 IOPS, 620,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	256,000 IOPS, 456,000 IOPS, 640,000 IOPS, 510,000 IOPS, 650,000 IOPS	550,000 IOPS, 550,000 IOPS, 550,000 IOPS, 560,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3	PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3
Controller	Phison E12S	Samsung Phoenix
NAND Type	BiCS 96L TLC	Samsung 92L 3D TLC
Endurance	380 TBW, 800 TBW, 1,665 TBW, 3,115 TBW, 6,000 TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1,200 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
Price (As of Writing)	$45, $70, $130, $250, $700	$60, $80, $165, $320
Availability	Amazon.com	Amazon.com

Comparing the advertised specifications, there are little significant differences between the two models, at least when it comes to the one terabyte versions. The Sabrent Rocket does have a 4 TB storage unit, which the Samsung 970 EVO Plus lacks, and the Rocket’s two smaller options (256 GB and 512 GB) trail the 970 EVO Plus in sequential write speeds by a sizeable margin. To be more specific, the 256 GB version has a 119% slower sequential write speed, a 49% slower 4K random read speed, and a 115% slower 4K random write speed. The 512 GB version also falls behind with a 60% slower sequential write speed and a 34% slower 4K random read speed. Other than that, the differences between the two SSD models are minimal; though we do also see a dip in performance for the 2 TB version of the Sabrent Rocket compared to its own 1 TB and 4 TB variants.

In terms of endurance, the Sabrent Rocket is far superior to the Samsung 970 EVO Plus, as it boasts Terabyte Written (TBW) durability that is 153%, 160%, 178%, and 160% higher for each storage size version respectively, from smaller to larger. That being said, even 150 TBW or 300 TBW values are high enough so that the vast majority of users would need more than a decade to even come close to reaching. Of course, having such high endurance metrics as the Sabrent Rocket is great for professionals that transfer large files on a regular basis.

Price-wise, the Sabrent Rocket is also significantly cheaper than the Samsung 970 EVO Plus, with a price difference ranging between 33% for the 250 GB version, to 22% for the 2 TB version. It would be a tall order for the 970 EVO Plus to outperform the Sabrent Rocket by such an equivalent margin, but it is plausible. So, let’s check the actual real-world benchmarks of these two SSDs and see whether or not Samsung’s storage drive can do the deed.

Benchmarks

For the 2 TB version of the Sabrent Rocket, which is advertised as being the weakest of the high storage variants of this SSD model, we see only minor differences in the sequential read and write speeds when compared to the Samsung 970 EVO Plus. Namely, the latter has a 3% faster peak sequential read, and an 8% faster sequential write speed. In terms of 4K random read and write speeds – despite having lower advertised metrics – the Sabrent Rocket was found to be faster by 17% and 10%. 

When it comes to benchmark applications, like PC Mark 10 (Full System and Quick System), Anvil, or even AS SSD, the Sabrent Rocket outperforms its Samsung counterpart by a significant margin – the largest of which being the PC Mark 10 Quick System score. In this test, it outperforms the 970 EVO Plus by a massive 107%. These testing programs are meant to apply stress to the storage units, simulating widely used functions and applications – and the PC Mark 10 Quick System benchmark would be most in tune with the demographic that both these SSDs are aimed for. That being, non-professional users and gamers. The fact, however, that the Sabrent Rocket scores higher even when stress tested for professional application standards simply adds more to its inherent value.

Verdict

Going back to the initial question of whether or not the ∫ is worth its price, when compared to the Sabrent Rocket, the answer is a definite “no” –at least at 1 TB and above. 

The 970 EVO Plus outperforms the Rocket only slightly in sequential read and write speeds, yet falls behind severely when it comes to running real-world applications. Especially for home users, the Sabrent Rocket is one of the best performing PCIe 3.0 NVME SSDs in the market. 

The post Sabrent Rocket vs Samsung 970 EVO Plus: Which NVMe SSD is Best? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

 The third generation of PCI Express lanes is just about ready to be replaced, now that Intel will also begin to provide support for the newer fourth generation PCIe interface; something that AMD has done with since the launch of their Zen 2 Ryzen 3000 Series processors. 

Because this transition is taking place, we see that PCIe 3.0 SSDs have been given a sizeable price decrease from their initial manufacturer-suggested retail prices. Add to this the fact that PCIe 4.0 lanes are backwards compatible – meaning you can plug in a 3^rd generation SSD and it will still work just fine, just at slower than PCIe Gen4 speeds – and these SSDs are still a great investment to make. But the real question is, are the Gen4 PCIe SSDs currently worth their extra cost?

One of the most popular, and reliable, SSD manufacturers, that has proven itself time and time again, is Samsung, as their hard drives provide high-end performance that is many times unrivaled by their competitors. Now, if you are wondering whether or not you should opt for a 3^rd generation PCIe SSD, wait for the prices of their 4^th generation counterparts to drop, or just invest in the latter now, one of the best comparisons to make is between Samsung’s 970 EVO Plus and their new 980 Pro model.

To find out which option provides better value for its cost, we will compare their advertised specifications, as well as real-world benchmarks results, and, in-turn, determine which is the smarter choice for the current state of the market.

Specifications

Model	Samsung 970 EVO Plus	Samsung 980 Pro
Design
Storage Sizes	250 GB, 500 GB, 1TB, 2 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB
Sequential Read	3,500 MB/s	6,400 MB/s, 6,900 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s
Sequential Write	2,300 MB/s, 3,200 MB/s, 3,300 MB/s, 3,300 MB/s	2,700 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,100 MB/s
4KB Random Read	250,000 IOPS, 480,000 IOPS, 600,000 IOPS, 620,000 IOPS	500,000 IOPS, 800,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	550,000 IOPS, 550,000 IOPS, 550,000 IOPS, 560,000 IOPS	600,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.3c
Controller	Samsung Phoenix	Samsung Elpis
NAND Type	Samsung 92L 3D TLC	Samsung 128L 3D TLC
TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$90, $130, $250, $380	$90, $150, $230, $430
Availability	Amazon.com	Amazon.com

Comparing their manufacturer given metrics, we do see a sequential read speed advantage for the Samsung 980 Pro that reaches 83% for the 250 GB model, 97% for the 500 GB variant, and 100% for the other two options – which is in line with the double-throughput performance that the new generation of PCIe lanes can achieve. Of course, it must be noted that these Gen 4 NVMe SSDs are still relatively early into the lifespan of PCIe Gen4, so a performance increase should come as time goes by. In terms of sequential write speeds, we see a slightly less impressive lead for the 980 Pro, ranging from 17% to 56%. Finally, for 4KB random read and write speed there is a difference that ranges from 66% to 100%, and 9% to 81% respectively.

Both the 970 EVO Plus and the 980 Pro have identical TBW (Terabytes Written) values – meaning they are equally durable – and both are also backed by Samsung’s 5-year warranty.

The difference between price, depending on the storage variant, is 50% for 250 GB, 63% for 500 GB, 39% for 1 TB, and 34% for 2 TB. Let’s check their actual benchmarked performance to see whether or not the 980 Pro is worth its additional cost.

Benchmarks

And, indeed, tests do prove the Samsung 980 Pro to be the superior SSD, when compared to the 970 EVO Plus, in every aspect tested. A 60% faster average sequential read speed, a 72% faster average sequential write speed, and 3% to 31% faster peak 4K random write and read speeds respectively. What does this mean in terms of real-world performance? Well, the Samsung 980 Pro has a 60% higher PC Mark 10 Full System score, and this benchmark is meant to simulate applications that range from web browsing, to gaming, and even video editing. For more demanding professional applications, we have the SPECworkstation 3 scores, which the 980 Pro outperforms the 970 EVO Plus by more than 48%. Of course, for gaming loading times the difference is far less impressive, with the 980 Pro loading Final Fantasy XIV’s benchmark by just 0.21 seconds faster (a 2% difference) – but this is to be expected, as even SATA III SSDs can outperform NVMe drives in this regard.

Verdict

Depending on the type of settings you are looking to build, either option can be a good fit. Overall, for its price, the Samsung 980 Pro is the superior SSD – especially for its 1 TB and 2 TB variants – but, for many, this model may be overkill. For a dedicated gaming PC, for example, the differences will hardly be noticeable, though this can also be argued for switching between a SATA III and an NVMe SSDs as well. That is not to say that no difference will be noticed, just not to the point of warranting the purchase of a $200+ storage drive. Even the price of the Samsung 970 EVO Plus is quite high for its performance, especially when comparing it to other options like ADATA’s XPG SX8200 Pro. Additionally, the Samsung 980 Pro also has its own competition, in the form of the Western Digital SN850 and the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus; comparisons for which you can find in the hyperlinks.

All in all, does the Samsung 980 Pro deliver performance equal to its price, when compared to the Samsung 970 EVO Plus? The answer is yes, it does. But whether or not you need that extra performance will depend on what you are looking for from your PC, and it is always smarter to pay only for what you need.

The post Samsung 970 EVO Plus vs 980 Pro: Which is Best Value? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

Third generation PCIe lanes are all but obsolete, as Intel is finally including PCIe 4.0 support with their new 11^th generation Rocket Lake-S processors, and their accompanying Z590 motherboards. Now, fourth generation PCI express compatible SSDs may be overkill for the majority of builds, but they are soon to become the new norm as their prices begin to drop further. 

Two excellent options to opt in to the new era of PCI express lanes and take advantage of its 16 GB/s speeds are the Western Digital Black SN850, and the Samsung 980 Pro. The former with its proprietary NVMe 1.4 interface and its in-house second-generation controller, and the latter with its 128 worldline layer 3D TLC NAND flash memory and Elpis controller: two high-end SSDs made by two of the most reliable PC-storage manufacturers in the market.

Since their prices are very similar, let’s take a look at what makes each of these two models unique, and see whether we can declare a winner in this PCIe Gen 4 NVMe SSD comparison.

Specifications

Model	Western Digital Black SN850	Samsung 980 Pro
Design
Storage Sizes	500 GB, 1TB, 2 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB
Sequential Read	7,000 MB/s	6,400 MB/s, 6,900 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s, 7,000 MB/s
Sequential Write	4,100 MB/s, 5,300 MB/s, 5,100 MB/s	2,700 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,100 MB/s
4KB Random Read	800,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS	500,000 IOPS, 800,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	570,000 IOPS, 720,000 IOPS, 710,000 IOPS	600,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.4	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.3c
Controller	WD Second Generation	Samsung Elpis
NAND Type	BiCS4 96L TLC	Samsung 128L 3D TLC
TBW	300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW	150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$150, $230, $450	$90, $150, $230, $430
Availability	Amazon	Amazon

Considering each SSD’s storage size options, we see that the WD Black SN850 500 GB model has a slightly quicker sequential read speed (1.44%), but it trails in all other aspects to the Samsung 980 Pro; except for 4KB random read speeds where they perform equally. It falls behind to the 980 Pro substantially in sequential and 4KB random write speeds, by 22% and 75%.

The 1 TB version of the Western Digital SN850 has the best performance of all storage-size versions, outperforming the 1 TB Samsung 980 Pro in sequential write speeds by 6%; but still falling short in 4KB random write by 38%, which is still a significant margin. 

Similar is the case with the 2 TB variant, which has equal sequential read and write speeds, equal 4KB random read, but once again falls short in 4KB random write by 41%. 

All endurance ratings are equal, with a respectably high Terabytes Written (TBW) values for both NVMe SSDs. To put their values into perspective, if you were to write 30 GB of data per day, it would take you 30 years to get through the 300 TBW rating of the 500 GB versions of these models, so, for the vast majority of users, this will hardly become an issue. Both SSDs are also backed by their manufacturer’s 5-year warranty. 

Lastly, their prices are also very similar, with the WD Black SN850 costing 10 dollars less than the Samsung 980 Pro for its 500 GB and 1 TB models, but, oddly enough, the 2 TB SN850 is $20 more expensive than the 2TB 980 Pro. 

Let’s check their benchmarks to see which SSD offers better value for its asking price.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks are actually surprisingly good for the 1 TB Western Digital Black SN850, as it outperforms the 1 TB Samsung 980 Pro in most results, only falling short in peak sequential read speeds – though by less than 1%. Perhaps the biggest upset is the peak 4K random write speed, where it should trail the Samsung 980 Pro by 38%, yet it ends up faster by 3%. Also, the WD SN850 achieved a 11% higher score in the PC Mark 10 Full System benchmark: which is a trace test meant to simulate widely used applications for typical home user workloads, including photo or video editing, and even gaming. 

That being said, the 980 Pro does prove its value in the SPECworkstation 3 tests: a benchmark that measures performance for professional, workstation, applications. It is here where the Samsung 980 Pro scores significantly higher than the WD SN850, with 6.25 points versus the SN850’s 5.10 points – a 23% difference. The 980 Pro was also able to load the Final Fantasy XIV StormBringer benchmarks faster, but the difference is low enough to be within the margin of error.

Verdict

All in all, both SSDs offer excellent performance in two distinct modes of application. Firstly, the WD Black SN850 excels in everyday home-PC use, as it has fast transfer speeds, quick loading times, and low latencies for better responsiveness. It is a great unit to install your PC’s operating system, or it can be used just as well as a second storage drive meant for installing storage-demanding games or storing large files. Especially for its 500 GB and 1 TB versions, the WD Black SN850 has an exceptional price to performance ratio, outperforming the Samsung 980 Pro in home-user workloads, and costing $10 less as well.

On the other hand, the Samsung 980 Pro offers superior workstation performance, which is what PCIe 4.0 SSDs are meant to operate. Its 2 TB version appears to be the best of its storage-variations, given its price and overall performance. 

The final result of this comparison is the declaration of a tie, as the 500 GB and 1 TB versions of the WD Black SN850 will be the better purchase for the majority of PC builds, while the 250 GB and 2 TB Samsung 980 Pro models offer better value for their price – especially for workstations setups. All in all, two excellent SSDs by two well-known and respected SSD manufacturers.

The post Western Digital Black SN850 vs Samsung 980 Pro: Which is Best? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

Western Digital is a respected and reliable storage-drive manufacturer that has been operating for nearly 50 years now; and their commitment to quality has been consistent to this today, as seen with their newer generation NVMe SSDs, the latest of which being the Black SN850. This SSD has been receiving praise from both users and critics alike, and for good reason. It rivals some of the best PCIe 4.0 M.2 drives, including Samsung’s 980 Pro.

But it is not just their newer products that has been gaining traction, as their PCIe gen 3 models, like the Black SN750, are just as worthy – especially as their prices continue to drop and become more affordable. The Black SN750 is a time tested SSD that combines high-end last-generation performance, together with an excellent price. 

Of course, it can be argued that third-generation PCIe lanes are on their way out, as now Intel too is providing support for gen 4 with their new 11^th generation Rocket Lake-S processor and Z590 motherboards. However, these next-generation PCIe 4.0 lanes do have backwards compatibility, so older 3^rd gen SSDs will not become obsolete.

Now, if you too are wondering if PCIe 4.0 drives are worth their increased price – or if it’s worth settling for a previous generation equivalent in order to save money – then this article will help you come to a conclusion, as we analyze all facets of Western Digital’s two higher-end models – the Black SN750 and Black SN850 – and reach a verdict on whether or not you should buy a PCIe 4.0 compatible SSD now, or wait until their prices drop.

Specifications

Model	Western Digital Black SN750	Western Digital Black SN850
Design
Storage Sizes	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB, 4 TB	500 GB, 1TB, 2 TB
Sequential Read	3,100 MB/s, 3,470 MB/s, 3,470 MB/s, 3,400 MB/s, 3,400 MB/s	7,000 MB/s
Sequential Write	1,600 MB/s, 2,600 MB/s, 3,000 MB/s, 2,900 MB/s, 3,100 MB/s	4,100 MB/s, 5,300 MB/s, 5,100 MB/s
4KB Random Read	220K IOPS, 420K IOPS, 515K IOPS, 480K IOPS, 550K IOPS	800,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS, 1,000,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	180K IOPS, 380K IOPS, 560K IOPS, 550K IOPS, 520K IOPS	570,000 IOPS, 720,000 IOPS, 710,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe 1.3	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.4
Controller	WD	WD Second Generation
NAND Type	SanDisk 64L TLC	BiCS4 96L TLC
TBW	200 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1,200 TBW, 2,400 TBW	300 TBW, 600 TBW, 1200 TBW
MTTF	1,750,000 Hours	1,750,000 Hours
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$80, $130, $250, $500, $900	$150, $230, $450
Availability	Amazon	Amazon

The fourth-generation lanes double the performance of their predecessors, as they are capable of 16 GB/s data rates, versus the 8 GB/s of gen 3. 

Accordingly, we do see a huge gap in the manufacturer provided specifications of the SN750 and SN850, as the latter nearly doubles the former in almost every performance aspect, bar the 4KB random write speeds. Of course, this new technology is still progressing, so the theoretical performance provided by Western Digital may not be reflected in the real-world benchmarks.

In terms of reliability, both models have an excellent mean time to failure (MTTF) of 1.75 million hours, and a Terabyte Written cap between 200 to 2,400 TBW, depending on the storage size. Both options also include Western Digital’s 5-year limited warranty.

The Black SN850 is far more expensive than the Black SN750, costing 84%, 62%, and 53% more for the 500 GB, 1 TB, and 2 TB variants respectively. 

Let’s now check the real-world benchmarks, and see whether or not the Black SN850 earns this substantial cost differential.

Benchmarks

As is to be expected by Western Digital, both SSDs perform remarkably well, reaching – and even surpassing – their manufacturer specifications in various aspects of testing. 

The Black SN850 outperforms the Black SN750 in peak sequential read speed by 116%, and in peak sequential write speed by 82%. Of course, these metrics drop significantly in real world applications, but the Black SN850 still does show a 66.5% and 58.7% faster sequential read and write speeds during real world applications: like reading a 15 GB movie file, or transferring a 100 GB dataset. A difference in gaming load times also exists, though it is less than a second’s worth (9% faster).  

Where the Black SN850 shows its value is the PCMark 10 Full System score, where it earns 126% more points than the Black SN750. PCMark 10 is a trace-based benchmark that simulates a plethora of popular consumer applications, including gaming, browsing, and editing tasks. The Black SN850 also achieved a 50% higher score in the SPECworkstation 3 benchmarks, which are meant to stress test the drive via the use of traces found in professional applications. 

Given its performance, the WD Black SN850 is also far more energy efficient than its predecessor, as it transfers 314 megabytes per watt expended – versus the 215 megabytes of the WD Black SN750.

Verdict

The WD Black SN850 does deliver in its promise to of almost double the speed of its previous generation counterpart, so is it worth its higher price tag?

Well, it depends. If you use your PC solely for gaming, you will hardly notice a difference between the two SSDs. A storage drive can only load gaming applications so fast, which is apparent in the fact that there has been little progress in this aspect over the past years. Older SATA III SSDs will perform similarly to new PCIe 4.0 generation storage drives when it comes to loading games, and even the $2,000 Intel Optane 905p will only cut about a second’s worth of loading times.

That being said, if you use your PC for more than just gaming, and need a drive that can handle photo, video, or audio editing – and even 3D content creation – then the Black SN850 is definitely worth its additional cost, especially for the 1 TB and 2 TB versions. Will their prices eventually drop? Certainly. But if you need a high-end SSD now, the Black SN850 provide top of the line performance at a respectable price.

The post Western Digital Black SN750 vs Black SN850: What are the Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

If you too have been making use of Sabrent’s NVMe SSDs, then you are well aware of the fact that this company makes high-performance storage units at an affordable price, rivaling even some of the best hard drive manufacturers. 

Sabrent was one of the first companies to develop a PCIe 4.0 compatible SSD: The Sabrent Rocket 4. Because it was so early in this endeavor to create a drive that uses the next-generation interface, it wasn’t able to fully take advantage of the speeds that the new PCIe lanes are capable of. Fast forward to the end of 2020, and Sabrent has come out with a new Sabrent Rocket: The 4 Plus. This SSD uses Phison’s upgraded PS5018-E18 controller, offering a significant performance boost to its predecessor.

The question is, how much of a performance boost? Is it enough to warrant its higher price-tag? Let’s compare the two – in terms of manufacturer specifications and real-world benchmarks – and find out.

Specifications

Model	Sabrent Rocket 4	Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus
Design
Storage Sizes	500GB, 1TB, 2TB	1TB, 2TB, 4TB
Sequential Read	5,000 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s, 5,000 MB/s,	7,000 MB/s, 7,100 MB/s, 7,200 MB/s
Sequential Write	2,500 MB/s, 4,400 MB/s, 4,400 MB/s,	5,300 MB/s, 6,600 MB/s, 6,900 MB/s
4KB Random Read	400,000 IOPS, 750,000 IOPS, 750,000 IOPS	350,000 IOPS, 650,000 IOPS, 650,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write	550,000 IOPS, 750,000 IOPS, 750,000 IOPS	700,000 IOPS, 700,000 IOPS, 700,000 IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.3	PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe 1.4
Controller	Phison E16	Phison PS5018-E18
NAND Type	Kioxia 96L TLC	Micron 96L TLC
TBW	850 TBW, 1,800 TBW, 3,600 TBW,	700 TBW, 1,400 TBW, 2,800 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
MSRP	$120, $200, $400	$300, $500, $1,000
Availability	Amazon	Amazon

The two storage size models that are in contention are the 1 TB and 2 TB variants, as only the Sabrent Rocket 4 has a 500 GB version, and only the Plus has a 4 TB drive. 

The Rocket 4 Plus displays sequential read and write speeds that are 40% and 20% faster than the Rocket 4, but its 1 TB version lacks severely in 4KB random read speeds, falling short by 114% to the 1 TB version of the Rocket 4. It also trails in 4KB random write speeds by 7%. 

As previously mentioned, the Rocket 4 Plus has an upgraded Phison controller, and it also uses an upgraded NVMe 1.4 interface. It does, however, have a similar 96-layer TLC NAND flash memory, though this time around made by Micron, instead of Kioxia (Toshiba). 

Both the Rocket 4 and the 4 Plus have some of the highest Terabytes Written (TBW) caps found in any NVMe SSD. The values are higher for the Rocket 4, but running through 700 TBW would take decades (for the vast majority of users), so the advantage will mean little to most.

Price wise, the Rocket 4 Plus has a 17% higher price at 1 TB, and a 14% higher price for the 2 TB drive. Let’s now check their benchmarks, and see if the 4 Plus warrants its slight price increase.

Benchmarks

Unsurprisingly, the 2 TB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus outperforms the Sabrent Rocket 4 in almost every aspect tested, only trailing slightly in 4K random read speed. It has a 42% faster sequential read speed, a 55% faster sequential write speed, and a 14% higher PCMark 10 Full System score (which simulates widely used PC applications). 

Where the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus outshines its competition by a significant margin, is its Peak Sequential write speeds. At 6,622 MB/s, this SSD does not only outperform its Rocket 4 predecessor, but it even surpasses the Samsung 980 Pro by 26%, and the Western Digital Black SN850 by 25%. It also has an incredibly low random write latency (0.015 ms) and high peak random write speeds. It is perhaps because of this that it scores so highly in the SPECworkstation 3 benchmark – a trace test that places high amounts of stress on the SSD, in order to simulate professional workstation applications. Here, once again, it outperforms its wider competition by 16.8% for the Samsung 980 Pro, and 43% for the WD Black SN850. 

Verdict

The Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus does indeed outperform the Rocket 4 enough to warrant its price, but only for those that need the additional speed. For setups primarily used for gaming, browsing, and light work applications, both of these SSDs are overkill, and the Sabrent Rocket 4 would be the better option based solely on its lower price.

For professionals looking to add more, and better, storage to their build, the Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus offers incredibly high write speeds – which shows in its SPECworkstation 3 results. Given also that it is cheaper than both the WD Black SN850 and Samsung 980 Pro, and that it is the only model that offers a 4 TB option, this SSD is the perfect fit for high-end workstation builds.

The post Sabrent Rocket 4 vs Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus: What are The Key Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.

If you’re in between purchasing one of Crucial’s M.2 NVMe SSDs, and are wondering whether to opt for the Crucial P1 or the Crucial P2, then you will be surprised on how different these two SSDs actually are. It may seem self-explanatory that a newer version of a hardware component would be the better performing unit – and that it would be similarly priced if not more expensive than its predecessor – but this is not the case for these two hard drives. Currently, the Crucial P2 is actually priced less than the Crucial P1, and their performance does vary substantially, depending on the application.

Of course, lest we forget, Crucial does also have their SATA III MX500 SSD, which has proven to be an excellent hard drive to house an operating system, games, or even content creation applications, as it has excellent load times and can even outperform Crucial and Samsung NVMe drives in this regard, according to benchmarks carried out by Tom’s Hardware. Therefore, both the Crucial P1 and Crucial P2 need to display excellent performance in order to outshine their inhouse SATA III counterpart, at least when it comes to gaming dedicated and entry-level/budget builds. 

To gain a better understanding of what differentiates the two SSDs have, as well as what type of builds each of these drives are meant for, let’s take a look at their manufacturer specifications and their real-world benchmarks, in order to determine what makes each of them unique. Do note that the Crucial P2 is currently selling for about 12% less than the Crucial P1, so it’s also worth checking whether or not the Crucial P1 is worth the extra cost.

Specifications

Model	Crucial P1	Crucial P2
Design
Release Date	2018	2020
Storage Sizes	500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB	250 GB, 500 GB, 1 TB, 2 TB
Sequential Read	1,900 MB/s, 2,000 MB/s, 2,000 MB/s	2,100 MB/s, 2,300 MB/s, 2,400 MB/s, 2,400 MB/s
Sequential Write	950 MB/s, 1,700 MB/s, 1,700 MB/s	1,150 MB/s, 940 MB/s, 1,800 MB/s, 1,900 MB/s
4KB Random Read	90K IOPS, 170K IOPS, 250K IOPS	170K IOPS, 95K IOPS, 295K IOPS, 295K IOPS
4KB Random Write	220K IOPS, 240K IOPS, 250K IOPS	260K IOPS, 215K IOPS, 430K IOPS, 430K IOPS
Bus Type	PCIe 3.0 x4	PCIe 3.0 x4
Controller	Silicon Motion SM2263EN	Phison E13T
NAND Type	Micron 64L QLC	Micron 96L TLC
TBW	100 TBW, 200 TBW, 400 TBW	150 TBW, 150 TBW, 300 TBW, 600 TBW
Warranty	5 years	5 years
Price (500GB, 1TB, 2TB)	$60, $105, $220	$43, $53, $92, $210
Availability	Amazon.com	Amazon.com

The main difference between these two SSDs is their inherent controller, as the Crucial P2 uses a 4-channel NVMe single-core designed Phison E13T which trades the use of DRAM for NVMe’s Host Memory Buffer. This translates to better read and write latencies, but will also impact application load times. Of course, the Crucial P2 also makes use of a much faster TLC NAND, which is more reliable and less prone to errors that the Crucial P1’s QLC flash – which is generally not recommended to be an operating system’s primary drive.

When it comes to read and write speeds for their 500 GB variants, Crucial states that the P2 is faster than the P1 by 10% to 21%. In random 4KB QD32 read speeds the P2 is superior to the P1 by 5%, but it trails the P1 in 4KB random write speeds by 2%.

Also, though both models are covered by Crucial’s 5-year warranty, the 500 GB Crucial P2 is rated for 50% higher Terabytes Written (TBW). For the vast majority of users this will hardly be an issue, as running through even 100 TB would require 30 gigabytes of data written per day for 10 years, and this limit will definitely not be met by the time the SSD will be replaced for most. However, given that the Crucial P2 is meant for larger data transfers, it is nice that it has a higher durability rating.

Let’s move on to the actual hard drive tests in order to see how accurate these manufacturer specifications really are.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks prove that Crucial’s assertions are, for the most part, actually correct, though the Crucial P2 is superior in all read and write measurements. It has a 50% faster peak sequential read speed, an 85% faster peak sequential write speed, and faster 4K random read and write speeds by 63% and 3% respectively. It is also more energy efficient by about 17%, as well.

Where the 500 GB Crucial P1 really held its own is during trace-based benchmarks, where it outperformed the Crucial P2 heavily in the PCMark 10 tests – with a staggering 32% performance advantage – and in SPECworkstation 3, which is meant to simulate workstation applications and push the hard drives to its limits. In this test, once again the Crucial P1 outperformed the newer Crucial P2, though within the margin of error. The icing on the cake, however, is the game scene loading times the Crucial P1 displayed. Usually, the differences in loading times between two SSDs – be it NVMe or SATA – are minimal, ranging between a second to a few tenths of a second. But in this case, the Crucial P1 loaded the game (Final Fantasy XIV: Shadowbringer) over three seconds faster than the Crucial P2 – which is a 23% performance boost. The 500 GB Crucial P1 also outperformed the 500 GB Crucial MX500, but only by 0.63 seconds.

Verdict

After analyzing the specifications and benchmarks of these two SSDs, we now have a clear picture of what type of build each model is meant for.

For the majority of users, including gaming builds, web browsing, and light general use, the Crucial P1 is the better choice. Of course, it can be argued that other NAND SSD options do exist that outperform the Crucial P1 while costing about the same – or even less – like the Intel 665p, the NAND TLC Western Digital Blue SN550, or, for a few dollars more, the ADATA XPG SX8200, so it still hard to recommend the Crucial P1 over some of its non-Crucial competition. 

On the other hand, the Crucial P2 may not be great for installing and running games and applications, but it is a fast SSD that is great for large file transfers, especially for its $92 current selling price for 1TB capacity. If you need an SSD to store and transfer files, the Crucial P2 will not disappoint.  

The post Crucial P1 vs Crucial P2: What Are The Key Differences? appeared first on PremiumBuilds.