Previewing Maxiotek's MK8115 SSD Controller: Can DRAM-less Drives Make The Cut?
by Billy Tallis on May 9, 2017 8:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test spans the entire drive, which is filled before the test starts. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
As can be expected, the DRAM-less MK8115 drives come in last in the random read speed test, with the MLC drive 13% slower than the OCZ VX500 and MX300 while the MK8115 TLC drive is closer to 28% slower. Samsung's 850 EVO and PRO are both more than twice as fast as the MK8115 drives.
Power consumption during the random read test is reasonable for both MK8115 drives, but the low performance means neither is particularly efficient.
 |
|||||||||
As queue depths increase both MK8115 samples show moderate increases in performance, tapering off slightly between QD16 and QD32. The MK8115 isn't drawing the most power among SATA SSDs at every single queue depth, but it's close.
Random Write Performance
The random write test writes 4kB blocks and tests queue depths ranging from 1 to 32. The queue depth is doubled every three minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The test is limited to a 16GB portion of the drive, and the drive is empty save for the 16GB test file. The primary score we report is an average of performances at queue depths 1, 2 and 4, as client usage typically consists mostly of low queue depth operations.
Random write speeds of the MK8115 samples are the slowest out of all the drives in this comparison, but the margin is much smaller than for random reads and nowhere near as large as the disparity in steady-state performance. The difference in performance between the MK8115 samples is smaller than it was for random reads.
The MK8115 drive with MLC levels off after QD8. The TLC counterpart was on track to deliver slightly higher performance at significantly lower power consumption, until the TLC drive filled up and the background garbage collection killed performance and drove up power consumption.
 |
|||||||||
The two MK8115 samples behave rather differently during this random write test. The TLC drive starts out slower at QD1 but performance scales better as queue depth climbs. The TLC drive is also substantially more power efficient, with power consumption growing more slowly than throughput. However, by the end of the test the SLC cache has filled, causing performance to drop below the QD1 throughput and power jumps up to be on par with the MLC drive.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
jabber - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
Its like Video Recorders or DVD players. The first ones weighed 30 kilos and were built like they were made during the Industrial Revolution. By the time they stopped making them they weighed 3 kilos, had 70% fewer parts and were mostly plastic.Magichands8 - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
Yep! Prices are getting higher in many cases even if they aren't dropping AND performance is either mediocre or just getting worse. Like I've said before, somewhere there are people buying such products. I don't know who they are or what's wrong withe them but I guess manufacturers are going to continue the trend for as long these people have money to lose. Even though it's dismaying to see I won't have much trouble waiting them out though. There's just very little value in most current offerings.MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I'm not sure of an instance where performance has dropped in the same price band over the past couple of years. Please feel free to enlighten meBrokenCrayons - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I'm one of those people buying such things. In my case, I was using mechanical hard disks until the middle of last year and I'm slowly (due to unusually high NAND prices) purchasing low performance SSDs for my home computers. Cheap, relatively slow SSDs still let me enjoy faster and more responsive storage. Since I'm not a power user or someone that's interested in waving around my consumer electronics like they're an extension of my reproductive organs, I have no want or need for the fastest and most expensive tier of solid state storage.While you wonder what's wrong with us for our purchases, we wonder what's wrong with you for being worried about what we buy when you can simply mind your business and buy a higher end product meant to meet your needs or desires.
MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I definitely respect your choices, as even a low-end SSD can best a HDD for metrics a typical home user would care about.melgross - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
Right now, there are memory shortages. NAND shortages are expected to last until the end of the year. Then prices will begin dropping again.beginner99 - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link
Yeah if this continues it will take less than a year and they will actually manage to perform worse than HDDs.JimmiG - Wednesday, May 10, 2017 - link
I agree, unless you absolutely need more SSD storage right now, I'd recommend holding off until next year.MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I just hope the shortage is going to end, and we can go back to cheaper SSDs. I'm also unsure of the usefulness of this drive, but I can see it being used in systems a notch above budget systems.looncraz - Tuesday, May 9, 2017 - link
I just want a 2TB SSD that costs $200 US and performs better than a hard drive (no spin up delays, lower latency, no moving parts).I could deal with 150MB/s transfer rates and even 2ms latencies for that. Still worlds better than the hard drives I use for storage now considering I have to spin them down as they are only accessed every few hours a couple times a day (but then stream data at 40MB/s+ for a couple hours).
I would buy three without hesitation.