The Toshiba RC100 SSD Review: Tiny Drive In A Big Market
by Billy Tallis on June 14, 2018 9:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
The burst sequential read performance of the Toshiba RC100 is faster than any SATA drive can manage, and is only slightly slower than the MyDigitalSSD SBX. The Host Memory Buffer feature has no significant impact here.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
On the longer sequential read test, the RC100 places slightly ahead of other low-end NVMe drives, but there's still a pretty large gap separating it from the high-end drives that can deliver multiple GB/s at low queue depths.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
Power efficiency from the Toshiba RC100 is decent by NVMe standards, but not record setting. Total power draw approaches 2W for the 480GB model, which is still quite low for NVMe drives.
 |
|||||||||
HMB appears to have a moderate impact on sequential read performance for the 480GB RC100 at some queue depths. Both capacities hit maximum performance when the queue depth is at least 8.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
The burst sequential write performance of the Toshiba RC100 is good for a low-end NVMe drive (or an older high-end drive), but is far below the current high-end drives.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
On the longer sequential write test, the RC100 performs quite well with HMB on—it slightly outperforms the 250GB Samsung 960 EVO, but can't keep pace with the newer 970 EVO. Even without HMB, the RC100 is one of the faster low-end NVMe drives for sequential writes, but having that extra buffer helps a lot.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
The Toshiba RC100 finally manages to score a power efficiency win: it just barely cracks 2W during this test and performance is better than most NVMe drives that pull 4W on this test.
 |
|||||||||
he sequential write speed of the 480GB RC100 plateaus at 1GB/s at a queue depth of 2 or higher, but there was a drop in performance at the end of the test that may have been the SLC cache finally running out. The performance from the 240GB takes a bit longer to reach full speed, and without HMB it is both slower and less consistent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I didn’t consider it either. The WD Black hit the sweet spot for me, picked the 512GB up on sale for $150...Ryan Smith - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
"My issue with Anandtech was the sole posting of the 970 EVO review and no 970 PRO review now for over 7 weeks."On the hardware side of matters, Samsung sampled us the 970 EVO at launch. They did not sample us the 970 PRO at that time. So that greatly impacts what gets reviewed and when.
XabanakFanatik - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I'm very confused at why Samsung would have sampled several other review sites with both drives (obvious by the reviews of both being posted together before launch) but have skipped on sampling Anandtech at the same time.Maybe it was a mistake? Maybe it was intentional? Maybe the 970 Pro would not have shined as well in the thorough testing you do here?
In any case, I need to apologize. Sorry, Billy, for jumping you about it. Thanks for an answer.
Ryan Smith - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link
Samsung essentially does random sampling. We got the EVO at two capacities instead of an EVO and a PRO.melgross - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Well, maybe that answers your question. If those other sites are inferior, then why would you care that they came out with early reviews?The truth is that these drives will provide more than enough performance for most people, and that includes most people here, if they’re willing to admit it.
CheapSushi - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Why are you so cranky? Seriously. Eat a snickers.gglaw - Wednesday, June 20, 2018 - link
He had a completely legitimate request/concern. If historically AT and other big sites typically review the top 2 models of any given release at a time like previous generation EVO/EVO Pro, GTX 1070/1080, etc., and HE has an interest in the product even if he's part of the <5% who cares, a thorough review would still be very significant for a semi expensive purchase. Most of us have 0 intention of buying the vast, vast majority of the reviews we read - we just like to know how new products are performing. Just like Billy and many of us here, the Toshiba drive is interesting but very few of us have any intention of buying it.Flagship products may only interest a very small percentage of the general public, but a much higher percentage of techies who follow hardware sites and even engage in the forums and comments. Most of us hardware enthusiasts buy plenty of things with almost no practical value. Anything beyong the AT light SSD testing is completely irrelevant to most home users yet we still care about the destroyer and heavy tests. I have the 850, 850 pro, 960 evo, 960 pro, and the cheapest per GB drive ever released (The Micron 3D TLC 2TB drive that goes on sale for $270 range every other week and barely above $200 with the father's day ebay coupon). My LAN room has all these drives running almost side by side and sadly no one including myself can even tell which drive is in which gaming station. Yet, I have no issues with paying 400% more per GB on one drive vs another that I literally can't tell the difference in when using the computers. The meaningless but insane numbers I see on CrystalMark somehow gives me some satisfaction.
Without Ryan clarifying the issue, most of us just assume products are sampled together based on how the reviews have come out in the past. Knowing this was different than their typical review pattern, maybe they should've just clarified it in the intro. Bashing them was unnecessary, but questioning why they would omit a major flagship release is completely valid. Flagship reviews are very interesting whether or not we buy them. They're indicative of many things that trickle down or where a company is in their technological advancement compared to others. Just because there is minimal real world difference between the 850/pro, 960/pro, how do we know they didn't tweak the 970 pro more? If Nvidia's flahship destroy's AMD's but their current midrange products are similar price/performance, there's a good chance the next midrange GTX card will be the midrange king (the 1060 comes out after 1080, the 1160 will come out after the 1180).
ptrinh1979 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I also find reviews like these to be refreshing. I prefer a variety of product reviews, not *just* the latest, greatest, and sometimes unattainable products. This review was very interesting to me because despite its flaws when the drive is full at lower capacities, its performance to price ratio makes it a contender for casual workloads. What was *really* useful for me was the price comparison chart at the end with the different capacities. I would use charts like that, and then cross reference the performance characteristics when I am recommending drive upgrades for clients who do not always have top dollars to spend, nor justify on an upgrade, yet not content to recommend typical upgrades, or corporate style upgrade recommendations.jabber - Saturday, June 16, 2018 - link
I like the reviews of the cheaper but still 'decent' gear as it works for my customers who don't want screaming top end stuff but want something better then spinning rust. Decent budget SSD options are important.ChickaBoom4768 - Saturday, June 16, 2018 - link
Totally agree with you. Such low priced technology has a real potential to disrupt the existing market instead of another $600 Intel/Samsung drive. In this case of course the drive is a sad disappointment but it was a good review.