The Plextor M8Pe (512GB) SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on December 14, 2016 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The Plextor M8Pe isn't breaking any records on The Destroyer. Its average data rate is slower than Samsung's PCIe SSDs and the OCZ RD400, but it does beat the Intel SSD 750 and is about 75% faster overall than the fastest SATA SSDs. The heatsink on the M8PeY only provides a very slight performance boost.
The average service times of the M8Pe are on par with the OCZ RD400 and the Intel SSD 750, and substantially worse than Samsung's PCIe SSDs. The differences are minor in comparison to the huge latency advantage they all enjoy over the best SATA SSDs (and Intel's TLC-based SSD 600p).
The frequency of high-latency outliers places the M8Pe in the second tier of drives. Samsung's PCIe SSDs have few or no operations take more than 100ms and the smallest percentage of operations that exceed 10ms. The M8Pe scores similarly to the Intel SSD 750 and OCZ RD400.
The Intel SSD 600p is the only thing keeping the M8Pe from taking last place for power consumption among M.2 PCIe SSDs. The M8Pe uses significantly more power than the OCZ RD400, which itself is more power-hungry than Samsung's SSDs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
DigitalFreak - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Bullwinkle was actually a bit retarded, so the username fits.Bullwinkle J Moose - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
My dear Mr Freak,I test actual numbers with a consistent hardware/software combination
If I get new hardware and software and the results for a specific SSD change by 1.7%, I can correct for the the new hardware/software for ALL of the SSD's tested without running new tests
With Synthetic benchmarks we cannot guarantee the accuracy between tests but more importantly the consistency between tests whenever you change test machines with different hardware/software/driver combo's
I can correct my results for different hardware and get reliably consistent results
You Cannot!
So you call ME the Retard?
You just don't get what it is that you just don't get
Meteor2 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Watch your mouth. Until then, people won't respect you.BrokenCrayons - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
"With Synthetic benchmarks we cannot guarantee..."Just like you've done in the past, you're advocating a controversial position you know will generate responses so you can get attention. Even if it's negative attention, you're still seeking it out.
MrSpadge - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10909/the-plextor-m8...1. Sequential read, QD1: 1500 MB/s
2. Sequential write, QD1: 1100 MB/s
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10909/the-plextor-m8...
3. Mixed sequential transfers, 50:50 distribution, QD1: 450 MB/s
Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
MrSpadgeCan you show how these Synthetic Benchmarks relate to actual timed file transfers for accuracy?
If not, you are zero for three as well
Try comparing ACTUAL TIMED TRANSFERS for the copy/paste test I outlined on ANY SSD you currently own and compare it to the results given for synthetic results at this site!
Are they consistently repeatable and reliable?
How far off are they?
ZERO FOR THREE!
NEXT!
BrokenCrayons - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
I see you're trying to boost your self-esteem by attempting to discredit someone that tried to help you.Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Simply repeating incorrect numbers from a synthetic benchmark is no help to anyoneIf you want to at least make the numbers sound believable, try
1483.8 MB/s read
1136.9 MB/s write
437.2 MB/s mixed
not 1500 / 1100 / 450
still wrong but more believable
ZERO FOR THREE!
MrSpadge - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
By insisting on "TIMED TRANSFERS", do you imply this would be a better than reporting the average throughput? Keep in mind that determining the throughput requires a time measurement. the result is just normalized to the amount of transfered data to make it universally useful (not everyone is interested in monolithic 100 GB files).And you talk a lot about accuracy and repeatability. Well, I suspect the benchmarks from AT are just that. However, what is not accurate and repeatable is if I do just what you said: take any random computer and run that copy test. Things influencing such a test, to a varying degree:
- software used for copying
- filling state of the SSD
- wear of the NAND
- interface version used (SATA2?)
- mainboard: controller hardware & firmware
- OS
- storage driver
- additional caching software
- background activity (e.g. how many tabs are open in the browser? how is the add blocker configured?)
This list is not complete, of course. So when is a test meaningful, real world and simple enough for you? When it matches your system in each of those points? Then you won't find a single satisfying review on the web, unless you create it yourself. But be aware that your results won't apply directly to others, so people will complain that you tested in a strange way.
Bullwinkle J Moose - Thursday, December 15, 2016 - link
Quote: By insisting on "TIMED TRANSFERS", do you imply this would be a better than reporting the average throughput?---------------------------------
If I time the transfer of 100GB in 66.66 seconds, I get 1500MB/sec average throughput so not
sure of your point there
1GB / 10GB / 100GB or whatever, as long as the same value is used between drives under test to get a valid comparison between drives on the same hardware + Software (No additional Caching)
The rest of your argument is valid, You may pass!
Synthetic testing may be fine for you but the numbers are meaningless for me
Go with whatever works for you