랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

  • head
  • news
  • product
  • mobile
  • benchmark
  • analysis
  • computing
  • multimedia

모빌리티(Mobility)라는 말을 들...
자율주행의 눈, 라이다 국내 스타...
AMD 라데온이 높은 전력소모와 온...



imgp8746.jpg


Samsung OEM Client PCIe SSD History
 ControllerNAND FlashNotesConsumer
Variant
XP941S4LN053X012D MLCPCIe 2.0, AHCI-
SM951UBX2D MLCAHCI or NVMe950 PRO
PM9512D TLC -
SM961Polaris2D & 3D MLC 960 PRO
PM9613D TLC 960 EVO
PM971Photon3D TLCBGA SSD, PCIe 3 x2-
PM981Phoenix3D TLC 980 Evo?


삼성 PM981 SSD 스펙

컨트롤러 : Samsung Phoenix

낸드플래시 : 64층 TLC V-NAND

인터페이스 : NVMe


테스트 시스템

AnandTech 2017 SSD Testbed
CPUIntel Xeon E3 1240 v5
MotherboardASRock Fatal1ty E3V5 Performance Gaming/OC
ChipsetIntel C232
Memory4x 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR4-2400 CL15
GraphicsAMD Radeon HD 5450, 1920x1200@60Hz
SoftwareWindows 10 x64, version 1703
Linux kernel version 4.12, fio version 2.21


ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The average data rate of the 1TB Samsung PM981 on The Destroyer is comparable to the 960 EVO 1TB and well ahead of any competing TLC-based drives like the Toshiba XG5. The 512GB PM981 is slower by a typical amount, and still faster than any of the non-Samsung drives of that size.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The 1TB PM981 shows a substantial improvement over the average and 99th percentile latency scores of the 960 EVO, putting it close to the 960 PRO. The 512GB PM981 isn't as impressive, with latency scores that fall behind most MLC-based NVMe SSDs.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The 1TB PM981 sets a new record (among flash-based SSDs) for average read latency on The Destroyer, shaving a few microseconds off the 960 PRO's performance. The average write latency can't quite keep up with the MLC-based 960 PRO that doesn't use SLC write caching. The smaller 512GB PM981 is competitive with most similarly-sized MLC-based drives, but slower than Samsung's 960 PRO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

Samsung's 99th percentile read latency is nothing special, though the PM981 does offer clear improvement over the 960 EVO. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent and far better than the 1TB 960 EVO. The 512GB PM981 is clearly the fastest TLC-based drive of that size that we've tested, but it doesn't quite match the 99th percentile latency scores of the MLC-based competition.


ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

On the Heavy test, the average data rates of the 512GB Samsung PM981 again lag slightly behind most MLC-based NVMe drives but are clearly ahead of the competitors' TLC drives. The 1TB PM981 is behaving a bit oddly with slower than expected performance after a secure erase, but great performance when filled.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average latency of the 1TB PM981 is a significant improvement over the 1TB 960 EVO, while the 512GB PM981 doesn't stand out from the other 512GB drives. The 99th percentile latencies aren't particularly good, and the 512GB PM981 scores worse than almost all the other PCIe SSDs of that size.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent especially when the test is run on an empty drive. Average read latencies for both drives are decent but aren't a big improvement over their predecessors.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies are one of the few ATSB scores where the TLC-based nature of the PM981 shines through. Many MLC-based SSDs are much better at keeping read latency under control, and the TLC-based Toshiba XG5 also scores much better than the PM981 here. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is pretty good, following suit to the average write latency, while the 512GB model could use some improvement.


ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

Both capacities of the Samsung PM981 offer great average data rates on the Light test. Their performance when full or empty is improved over the Samsung 960 EVO and comes close to the 960 PRO.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the PM981s aren't much of an improvement over Samsung's last generation, but this is still a new record for flash-based SSDs, even though the PM981 is using TLC NAND.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

The average write latency of the PM981s is great whether the test is run on a full or empty drive, but the average read latency is slightly worse than the 960 PRO when the test is run on a full drive.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the PM981s is record-setting when the Light test is run on an empty drive, but only the 1TB sets a record when the test is run on a full drive. The 99th percentile write latency is excellent on both drives in either test scenario.



Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random read performance of the Samsung PM981 is great by the standards of TLC SSDs, but is surpassed by several MLC-based drives, including the Phison E7-based Patriot Hellfire with planar MLC NAND.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

On the longer random read test that includes some higher queue depths, the PM981 comes a bit closer to the standard set by Samsung's MLC drives, and it outperforms all the non-Samsung drives.

Both capacities of the PM981 show performance scaling with queue depth in the typical manner for a high-performance drive, though the 512GB model has passed an inflection point by QD32 and is approaching saturation.

Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

There are a few MLC-based SSDs that offer substantially higher burst random write performance than the Samsung PM981, but it is on par with most high-end drives including the Samsung 960 PRO.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the longer random write test, the 1TB PM981 stands out with clearly higher performance than the Samsung 960 series could manage. The 512GB PM981 is slower but still definitely performing like a high-end drive.

The random write performance of the 1TB PM981 scales very well with increasing queue depth. As compared to the Samsung 960 series, it also reaches its plateau around QD8, but is providing much higher throughput by that point. The 512GB model runs out of SLC cache during portions of this test so its performance is much lower and less steady.


Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read performance of the Samsung PM981 doesn't quite set a new record, but it's pretty close to the top performer and very far ahead of any non-Samsung drive.

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.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer test with higher queue depths, the best MLC-based drives pull ahead of the PM981 and even the 960 EVO has a slight advantage.

The 1TB PM981 starts out with almost the same performance as the 1TB 960 EVO, but the PM981's performance falls off a bit during the first half of the test while the 960 EVO remains steady. The 512GB PM981 doesn't experience any slowdown, but it is slower than the 1TB model throughout the test.

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.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The PM981s both deliver the same record-setting burst sequential write performance that is a marked improvement over the best of Samsung's last generation, and far ahead of any competing flash-based SSD.

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.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

On the longer sequential write test, the 512GB PM981 falls behind most of the rest of the Samsung drives but the 1TB model remains on top, ahead of even the 960 PROs.

The 1TB PM981 hits full write speed at QD2 and stays there for the rest of the test, holding on to its lead over the 960 PRO. The 512GB PM981 runs out of SLC write cache early on and its performance bounces around with the garbage collection cycles.


Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The mixed random I/O performance of the Samsung PM981 is a big improvement over last generation's 960 EVO. The 1TB PM981 beats out even the MLC-based 960 PRO, while the smaller 512GB PM981 is a bit slower than the 960 PRO of the same size.

As the proportion of writes in the mixed workload increases, the PM981 steadily gains performance, pulling further and further ahead of the 960 EVO. The 512GB PM981's main weakness is that its performance doesn't hit quit as high a peak during the final phases of the test when the workload is almost entirely random writes.

Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The 512GB PM981 matches the mixed sequential performance of the MLC-based 512GB 960 PRO, while the 1TB PM981 is substantially faster than the 960 PRO or any other flash-based SSD.

The Samsung 960 PRO 1TB outperforms the 1TB PM981 during the early read-heavy phases of the mixed sequential test, but then its performance drops off precipitously while the PM981 retains its performance until later in the test. The 512GB PM981 averages almost exactly the same performance as the 512GB 960 PRO, but with substantial differences in the details: the 960 PRO is faster at either end of the test, but the PM981 has a significant advantage for more even mixes of reads and writes.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com






  1. 삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 : Replacing A Legend

    삼성전자 860 PRO SSD 리뷰 - https://www.anandtech.com Samsung 860 PRO SpecificationsCapacity256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TB4 TBForm Factor2.5" SATA 6 GbpsControllerSamsung MJXNANDSamsung 64-layer 3D MLC V-NANDLPDDR4 DRAM512 MB1 GB2...
    Date2018.02.03 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1664
    Read More
  2. 세계 1위 게임, 배틀그라운드를 통한 인텔 vs AMD CPU 성능 비교

    전 세계적으로 화제가 되고 있는 배틀 그라운드 게임을 통한 인텔 CPU와 AMD CPU의 성능 비교 벤치마크 입니다. 유튜브 채널 : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg 배틀 그라운드 게임에서 인텔과 AMD CPU...
    Date2017.12.30 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views56910
    Read More
  3. 인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 리뷰 : Diving Deeper Into 3D XPoint

    인텔 옵테인 SSD 900p 480GB 스펙 컨트롤러 : 인텔 SLL3D 메모리 : 인텔 128Gb 3D XPoint 테크놀로지 인터페이스 : PCIe 3.0 x4 폼팩터 : HHHL Add-in card or 2.5" 15mm U.2 / HHHL Add-in card / HHHL Add-in car...
    Date2017.12.25 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1687
    Read More
  4. 삼성 PM981 SSD 리뷰 : Next Generation Controller And 3D NAND

    Samsung OEM Client PCIe SSD History ControllerNAND FlashNotesConsumer VariantXP941S4LN053X012D MLCPCIe 2.0, AHCI-SM951UBX2D MLCAHCI or NVMe950 PROPM9512D TLC -SM961Polaris2D & 3D MLC 960 PROPM9613D TLC 960 EVOPM971Photon3D TLCB...
    Date2017.12.25 CategorySTR Reply0 Views8351
    Read More
  5. 엔비디아 타이탄 V 리뷰 - Titanomachy: War of the Titans

    엔비디아의 인공지능 GPU - 타이탄 V 리뷰 NVIDIA GPU DirectX Graphics Feature Info Volta (Titan V)Pascal (Titan Xp)Direct3D Feature Level12_112_1Fast FP16 ShadersNoNoTiled ResourcesTier 3Tier 3Resource Bin...
    Date2017.12.23 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views1658
    Read More
  6. 애플 아이폰X vs 안드로이드 스마트폰 성능 대결.2

    아이폰X의 폰아레나(www.phonearena.com) 리뷰 입니다. 아이폰X 스펙 아이폰X 제스처 테스트 아이폰X 동영상 테스트 아이폰X, 아이폰8 CPU / GPU 성능 ...
    Date2017.11.18 CategoryETC Reply3 Views4057
    Read More
  7. 아이폰X vs 갤럭시 노트8 vs 픽셀2 성능 대결.1

    애플 아이폰X vs 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 vs 구글 픽셀2 스마트폰의 간단한 성능 비교 자료입니다. 2분짜리 4K 비디오 영상을 인코딩하며 CPU 성능 측정 결과 아이폰X는 42초에 완료, 픽셀2는 2분 55초, 삼성 갤럭시 노트8은 3분 3초가 소요...
    Date2017.11.11 CategoryETC Reply4 Views1303
    Read More
  8. 엔비디아 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 심층 리뷰 : 수상한 시대에__

    Brad Chacos | PCWorld 지포스 GTX 1070 Ti 리뷰는 AMD의 라데온 베가 56이 없었더라면 하지 않았을 리뷰이다. 엔비디아의 GTX 10 시리즈는 2016년 5월, 그러니까 지금으로부터 1년 반쯤 전에 지포스 GTX 1070과 GTX 1080의 출시와 함께 첫선을 보였다. G...
    Date2017.11.06 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views3131
    Read More
  9. 커피레이크 i5 8600k, 8400, i3 8350K, 8100 vs AMD 라이젠 승부

    화제의 인텔 커피레이크 시리즈 벤치마크 입니다. 하단 게시물은 8700K 위주이기 때문에 i5 8600K, i5 8400, i3 8350K, i3 8100 성능이 포함된 자료를 링크해 드립니다. 벤치마크 출처 - https://www.computerbase.de 커피레이크와 AMD 라이젠 외형 ...
    Date2017.10.22 CategoryCPU Reply2 Views4414
    Read More
  10. 인텔 커피레이크 8700K 리뷰, 새로운 시대의 왕권 강화

    인텔이 마침내 프로세서 시장의 새로운 시대를 알리는 커피레이크 시리즈를 발표했다. 커피레이크는 물리 6코어를 i5 라인으로 투입함으로써 긴 시간동안 i5의 메인스트림이였던 4코어를 넘어선 본격적인 6코어 시대로 진입하는 중요한 이정표가 ...
    Date2017.10.06 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views8591
    Read More
  11. 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰, 안드로이드 최상급 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 V30 리뷰에 이어 삼성 갤럭시 노트8 리뷰가 업데이트가 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55266554 ---------...
    Date2017.09.30 CategoryETC Reply3 Views918
    Read More
  12. 인텔 18코어 Core i9-7980X, 16코어 Core i9-7960X 성능 확인

    Gordon Mah Ung | PCWorld 인텔이 다시 시장을 강타했다. 인텔은 몇 개월 동안 자사 영역을 잠식한 AMD 라이젠 쓰레드리퍼(Threadripper)에 대항할 강력한 18코어 코어 i9-7980X와 16코어 코어 i8-7960X를 출시했다. 불의의 일격을 당한 ‘골리앗’ 인텔이 ...
    Date2017.09.29 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views1933
    Read More
  13. LG V30 리뷰, 현존 안드로이드 최고 스마트폰

    플레이웨어즈(http://playwares.com) 사이트에 LG의 최신 스마트폰 V30 리뷰가 업데이트 되어 링크해 드립니다. 자세한 리뷰 내용은 아래 링크에서 확인하시기 바랍니다. 출처 - http://playwares.com/mobilereview/55206575 ----------------------...
    Date2017.09.23 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1460
    Read More
  14. 화제의 배틀그라운드 CPU 성능비교, 인텔 7700K vs 라이젠 1800X

    국내 커뮤니티 사이트의 회원이 실제 게임 영상과 캡처 화면으로 테스트한 세부적인 자료가 있어 소개합니다. 출처 - http://www.coolenjoy.net/bbs/27/1609823?page=4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------...
    Date2017.09.02 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views3594
    Read More
  15. 라데온RX 베가 56 & 64 성능 확인 (Radeon RX Vega 64 & 56)

    AMD Radeon RX Series Specification Comparison AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 LiquidAMD Radeon RX Vega 64AMD Radeon RX Vega 56AMD Radeon R9 Fury XStream Processors4096 (64 CUs)4096 (64 CUs)3584 (56 CUs)4096 (64 CUs)Texture Units256256224256ROPs6464646...
    Date2017.08.15 CategoryGPU Reply4 Views4445
    Read More
  16. AMD 라데온 베가 RX 64 8GB vs. 지포스GTX 1080 성능비교

    AMD가 새로 발표한 플래그십 GPU, 라데온 베가RX 64의 탐스 하드웨어 리뷰입니다. 베가 외형 라데온 베가는 AMD의 새로운 아키텍처로 설계된 GPU 입니다. 베가 아키텍처 상세 내...
    Date2017.08.15 CategoryGPU Reply3 Views2258
    Read More
  17. 공식) AMD 라이젠 스레드리퍼 1950X 성능 확인

    Threadripper 1950X Core i9-7900X Threadripper 1920X Core i7-7820X Threadripper 1900X Price $999 $999 $799 $599 $549 Interface/Chipset TR4 / X399 LGA2066 / X299 TR4 / X399 LGA2066 / X299 TR4 / X399 Cores/Threads 16/32 ...
    Date2017.08.11 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views2414
    Read More
  18. AMD 라이젠3 1300X, 1200 vs. 인텔 i3 7100 / G4560 대결

    AMD Ryzen SKUs Cores/ ThreadsBase/ TurboXFRL3TDPRetail 7/27CoolerRyzen 7 1800X8/163.6/4.0+10016 MB95 W$419-Ryzen 7 1700X8/163.4/3.8+10016 MB95 W$299-Ryzen 7 17008/163.0/3.7+5016 MB65 W$279Spire RGBRyzen 5 1600X6/123.6/4.0+10016 MB95 W$...
    Date2017.07.29 CategoryCPU Reply2 Views11466
    Read More
  19. AMD 라데온 베가 프론티어 에디션 16GB 성능 공개

    Vega Frontier EditionTitan XpGTX 1080 TiTitan X (Pascal)GTX 1080TITAN XGTX 980R9 Fury XR9 FuryGPUVegaGP102GP102GP102GP104GM200GM204Fiji XTFiji ProGPU Cores409638403584358425603072204840963584Base Clock1382 MHz1480...
    Date2017.07.01 CategoryGPU Reply5 Views5971
    Read More
  20. 인텔 스카이레이크X 7900X, 7820X, 7800X, 카비레이크X 7740 테스트

    마침내 등장한 인텔 스카이레이크X 7900X, 7820X, 7800X, 카비레이크X 7740 테스트 출처 - http://www.anandtech.com Skylake-X Processors (Low Core Count Chips) Core i7-7800XCore i7-7820XCore i9-7900XCores / Threads6/128/1610/20Ba...
    Date2017.06.25 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views5247
    Read More
  21. 게이밍 환경에서 AMD 라이젠 vs. 인텔 CPU 성능 비교

    게이밍 환경에서 인텔 VS AMD CPU 성능 비교 - 출처 : https://www.techpowerup.com AMD 선수 : 라이젠 1800X - 1700X - 1700 - 1600X - 1600 - 1500X - 1400 인텔 선수 : 코어 7700K - 6700K - 7600K - 7500 - 7400 - 7100 - G4560 [ 테스...
    Date2017.06.11 CategoryCPU Reply6 Views20581
    Read More
  22. 5~6만원선 140mm 슬림 타워 CPU 쿨러 4종 벤치마크

    140mm Tower CPU CoolersProductFan(s)Fan Speed (RPM)Height (mm/in)Current Retail PricingNoctua NH-U14S1 × 140 mm1500 RPM165 mm / 6.5”$65Phanteks PH-TC14S1 × 140 mm1300 RPM160 mm / 6.3”$50ThermalRight True Spirit 140 Direct1 × 140 mm1600 RPM16...
    Date2017.05.27 CategoryETC Reply0 Views1760
    Read More
  23. 갤럭시 S8 Vs. LG G6 카메라 성능 비교 (ITworld)

    Jason Cross, Adam Patrick Murray | Greenbot 지난 해, Greenbot은 삼성 갤럭시 S7, LG V20, 아이폰 7을 누르고 구글 픽셀을 스마트폰 카메라 1위로 선정했다. 그리고 지난 달, 픽셀은 LG G6를 상대로 방어전을 치렀으나 패배하고 말았다. 이제 새로운 ...
    Date2017.05.13 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1650
    Read More
  24. AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB Review, Polaris 12 GPU

    AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB Review - http://www.tomshardware.com Radeon RX 550 Radeon R7 260X Radeon RX 460 Shader Units 512896 896ROPs16 16 16 GPUPolaris 12 Bonaire Polaris 11 Transistors2.2 Billion 2.08 Billion 3 Billion Memory Size 2GB2GB...
    Date2017.05.01 CategoryGPU Reply3 Views1730
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 25 Next
/ 25