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
StrangerGuy - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
Yet another new SSD article on AT that ends up showing how it gets destroyed by Samsung in overall specs/price.franz899 - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
Actually the Crucial BX100 is a better choice looking at the scores.medi03 - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
Nope, not to note it isn't even present on many screens and MX200 is a different product.SmokingCrop - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
The BX series is better bang for the buck, you won't notice the speed difference with the popular samsung drives.salimbest83 - Wednesday, October 14, 2015 - link
im shopping for new 240GB+ ssd. looks like BX100 is the way to go rite?Billie Boyd - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link
I rather go with AMD Radeon R7 series. Its one of the highly rated high drives in the market (see http://www.consumerrunner.com/top-10-best-hard-dri... for example)emn13 - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
Assuming this is a low-end drive i.e. cheaper than the 850 pro, it looks like it outperforms the 850 evo mSata pretty much across the board, getting close to crucial's BX100.FriendlyUser - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link
As an owner of 2x840 EVO and 2xPlextor, I can tell you the Samsung's bug was a major disappointment. Read performance after months simply sucks and I had to patch the firmware 2-3 times and regularly "manually" freshen the data with the samsung tool. I have way more confidence in the Plextor firmware. Never again Samsung.AnnonymousCoward - Friday, October 16, 2015 - link
...yet another SSD article on AT that focuses on the pointlessness of non-real world benchmarks. Readers will leave this article without having a clue what boot time differences to expect between drives, or any other metric. I've been saying this for years. HardOCP finally caught on. http://tinyurl.com/pvyzmaudj_aris - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link
What is the purpose of reviewing SATA SSD drives? Anyone in the market for a drive should either buy a spinning HDD for storage or a PCIe for speed.