The Plextor M6V (256GB) SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on October 12, 2015 8:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
Our random read performance test is conducted on a full drive and tests queue depths from 1 to 32. We focus primarily on the lower queue depths that are typical of interactive use, but also look at how the performance and power scales to more intensive loads. For desktop use, searching and virus scanning are typically the biggest sources of random reads, and they can exercise some of the larger queue depths.
The M6V posts above average performance on the random read test, and is clearly better tuned for it than the Crucial BX100.
The power consumption and thus efficiency here are significantly better than the competition.
 |
|||||||||
| Default | |||||||||
The M6V scales well with increasing queue depths, and its high rating above comes mostly from its good performance with queue depths of 2 and 4. Power consumption starts low and only grows slightly.
Random Write Performance
The random write test is confined to a 16GB portion of the drive, which is otherwise empty. This allows the drive to demonstrate much higher performance than on our performance consistency test that fills the drive. Tasks like installing software updates can modify a lot of files, but aren't hitting the entire disk. Random writes to the entire disk are usually found only in enterprise workloads such as large databases.
The M6V falls back to being one of the slowest MLC drives, but the spread among 240-256GB drives isn't huge.
The lower performance again brings power savings, showing that the M6V is pretty well optimized, just not for peak performance.
 |
|||||||||
| Default | |||||||||
Many drives of this size hit a performance limit somewhere along this test, but the M6V scales smoothly across the range of queue depths. However, the overall increase is small and the lower queue depths are left lacking.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
51 Comments
View All Comments
eek2121 - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
PCIE SSDs? Can you find me one with 500 gb storage for $169? The market isn't there yet. PCIE SSDs are in the minority and the price premium is still too high. The performance difference is minimal, especially for casual users.Denithor - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
How's $173? Amazon has the Crucial MX200 500GB drive at this price point. And if you had asked yesterday, it was on sale for $140.http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-MX200-500GB-Internal...
coolhardware - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
I believe he was referring to any type of PCIe SSDs such as http://amzn.to/1Naj0E2 (Intel 400GB) or a M.2 drive, not a SATA drive as per your link (Crucial 500GB).Luke212 - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
You mean in your circumstances. Most laptops dont support M.2 PCIe. So we are stuck buying M.2 Sata or 2.5" Sata.SmokingCrop - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
HDD is too slow for OS/programs and PCIe is too expensive.SATA SSD's is the sweet spot in between.
usernametaken76 - Thursday, October 15, 2015 - link
Some people have older systems and would like to freshen them without replacing the thing, you know? Not everyone can utilize PCIe storage (laptops for instance) and not everyone wants the drawbacks of spinning HDD storage. That's the nice thing about choice, dj_aris doesn't get to make the choice for everyone.Denithor - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
And today only (10/12) the Crucial BX100 250GB drive is on sale at Amazon for $64. So this could make the whole question of best value for price moot, if you move quickly.:)
coolhardware - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
Ordered one myself! Currently Amazon's #1 selling SSD. http://amzn.to/1VPK7vk The 500GB drives are a nice price too.Just imagine, in a few years we should be able to get 2TB and 4TB+ for a fairly low price. That will be AWESOME.
nmm - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
I guess I can understand the compulsion to build a better SATA SSD if you're not already the market leader in SATA SSD's. It's much cheaper than plunging into uncharted territory. I do find it a little puzzling that there isn't more movement in the M.2/U.2 market. Seems like it would get tiresome constantly bumping up against the limits of the protocol for years on end.Gigaplex - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
If these lower end SSD manufacturers targeted a faster protocol using tech that can't fully utilise SATA3, it's likely to be an uncompetitive product.