랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

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

카메라 성능을 측정하는 https://...
□ 개요  o Veritas社, NetBackup ...
10월 보안 릴리스는 다음 소프트...


HP SSD.png


HP 브랜드 EX920 M.2 SSD 스펙

컨트롤러 : 실리콘 모션 SM2262

낸드플래시 : 인텔 마이크론 64층 3D TLC

시퀀셜 읽기 : 3200MB/s - 3200MB/s - 3200MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 1200MB/s - 1600MB/s - 1800MB/s

랜덤 읽기 : 180k IOPS - 340k IOPS - 350k IOPS

랜덤 쓰기 : 250k IOPS - 260k IOPS - 250k IOPS








벤치마크 테스트 시스템


AnandTech 2018 Consumer 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 1709
Linux kernel version 4.14, fio version 3.6
Spectre/Meltdown microcode and OS patches current as of May 2018


AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The average data rate from the 1TB HP EX920 on The Destroyer is a bit disappointing, falling below the lower-capacity Intel 760p and only a little over half as fast as current 1TB high-end NVMe SSDs. The EX920 is still substantially faster than SATA SSDs or low-end NVMe SSDs like the Phison E8-based Kingston A1000, but the EX920 is definitely not in the same league as Samsung's drives or the current WD Black.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the HP EX920 cast the drive in a slightly better light than the average data rate did, but it is still falling short of the high-end NVMe drives. The EX920 scores better than the smaller Intel 760p on these two metrics, even though the Intel drive delivered a higher average data rate.

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

The HP EX920's average read latency is about twice as high as the high-end NVMe SSDs. The average write latency of the EX920 is also worse than the Samsung drives and WD Black by about the same factor, but the boundary for the top tier of drives is not as sharp since the Plextor M9Pe and the aging Toshiba OCZ RD400 are also lagging behind some.

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

The 99th percentile read latency of the HP EX920 is decent, though it could also be said that this is simply a matter of Samsung's drives being uncharacteristically unimpressive while the WD Black sets a high standard. The 99th percentile write latency of the EX920 is clearly a problem, with more than 40% higher latency than any drive in this bunch that isn't using a Silicon Motion controller. The EX920 and Intel 760p fare much better than the previous generation Intel 600p thanks to improvements to both the flash and the controller, but it is clear that Silicon Motion still needs to work of their QoS.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The energy usage of the HP EX920 when running The Destroyer is a bit on the high side by M.2 NVMe SSD standards, but it doesn't stand out from other power-hungry drives including the Samsung 970 EVO. Unlike the 970 EVO, the EX920 doesn't justify its high power consumption with high performance, though even the 970 EVO's power consumption is hard to excuse when the WD Black offers the same performance for a little over half of the energy usage. NVMe power efficiency is still a work in progress for the industry as a whole.


Random Read Performance

Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The HP EX920 surprises with a new record high burst random read performance from a flash-based SSD. It's still nothing compared Intel's Optane SSDs, but it's a substantial improvement over the competition. Even the MLC-based drives can't beat the EX920 on this test.

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, the HP EX920 no longer stands out, but it's securely within the high-end performance bracket and isn't too far behind the fastest TLC SSD.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/WAverage Power in W

The power efficiency of the EX920 during the sustained random read test is poor, but the Samsung 970 EVO's score is almost as bad. Both drives need to improve a lot to match the WD Black or even the Toshiba XG5, which are a bit slower but draw a full 1W less power during the test.


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)

The burst random write performance of the HP EX920 isn't quite the fastest we've measured, but it's still excellent. The Intel 760p managed a few percent faster with the same controller, but it's the WD Black that currently seems to have the fastest SLC write cache.

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 HP EX920 isn't quite in the top tier of drives, but it still performs better than most of the older high-end NVMe SSDs like the RD400 and XG5.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/WAverage Power in W

The power efficiency of the HP EX920 during the sustained random write test is good, but can't compete with the WD Black and Toshiba XG5. It's still a huge improvement over Silicon Motion's previous generation as represented here by the Intel 600p.


Sequential 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%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The HP EX920 breaks another record by delivering burst sequential read speeds of almost 2.5GB/s, when no other TLC-based SSD we've tested has yet hit 2GB/s on this test. The EX920 is even beating the MLC and 3D XPoint-based drives on this test.

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. This test is run twice: once with the drive prepared by sequentially writing the test data, and again after the random write test has mixed things up, causing fragmentation inside the SSD that isn't visible to the OS. These two scores represent the two extremes of how the drive would perform under real-world usage, where wear leveling and modifications to some existing data will create some internal fragmentation that degrades performance, but usually not to the extent shown here.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer sequential read test with higher queue depths, the Samsung 960 PRO catches up to the EX920 and Samsung's TLC-based competitors come close. However, this only applies to a clean drive and data that was written sequentially. When the data has been fragmented by random writes, the sequential read speed of the EX920 drops by a lot, leaving it merely average and much slower than the Samsung drives (or the Optane SSD that is immune to this form of fragmentation).

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/WAverage Power in W

With such high sequential read performance on a clean drive, it's no surprise to see the HP EX920 near the top of the efficiency chart, even though the drive is pulling more than 5W. On fragmented data the EX920 ends up worse off than any drive that isn't using a Silicon Motion controller, because the sequential read speed tanks while power consumption remains about the same.


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 burst sequential write speed of the HP EX920 is great, but it is overshadowed a bit by the large lead Samsung's 970 EVO has on this test.

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 HP EX920 falls a bit further behind as the scores of the top-tier drives are a bit more spread out than for the burst test. The EX920 is still providing performance that is worthy of a high-end NVMe SSD, but it can't match Samsung or WD.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/WAverage Power in W

The power efficiency of the HP EX920 on the sustained sequential write test is good, but several drives deliver higher performance while drawing less power, and the 970 EVO offers substantially higher performance with only slightly higher power draw. The most efficient drive is still the Toshiba XG5, which performs the same as the EX920 on this test but draws only 3W while the EX920 requires more than 5W.


Mixed Random Performance

Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

None of the flash-based SSDs can come close to the performance of Intel's Optane SSDs on the mixed random I/O test. But setting that aside and looking only at the drives that are priced close enough to be in direct competition, the HP EX920's performance is great: it narrowly beats the WD Black and is surpassed only by Samsung's top drives. The 1TB EX920 is substantially faster than the smaller Intel 760p and more than twice as fast as the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD.

Sustained 4kB Mixed Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/WAverage Power in W

The power efficiency of the EX920 during the mixed random I/O test is nothing special. As with many other tests, the HP draws more power than most drives, leading to poor efficiency when it can't also deliver top performance. The WD Black offers about the same performance with a 2W power draw instead of the 3W the HP requires, which allows the WD Black to beat even the super-fast Optane SSD for efficiency.


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 HP EX920 doesn't offer the fastest performance on the mixed sequential I/O test, but it does maintain an average that's well above 1GB/s and close enough to the top drives that the difference would be barely noticeable without our benchmarking tools. The EX920 is substantially faster than drives like the Toshiba XG5 and Plextor M9Pe that also use 64L 3D TLC, and it's almost four times faster than the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD.

Sustained 128kB Mixed Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/WAverage Power in W

As usual, the HP EX920 draws quite a bit of power-almost as much as the Samsung 970 EVO. Since the EX920 doesn't offer quite the same level of performance, its efficiency score suffers but remains ahead of the older generation of high-end NVMe SSDs.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com






  1. AMD RADEON RX 590 벤치마크 - RX 580 오버클럭 버전

    AMD가 새로 발표한 라데온 RX 590 성능 벤치마크 라데온 VS 지포스 스펙 비교표 Test SystemTest System - VGA Rev. 2018.2Processor:Intel Core i7-8700K @ 4.8 GHz (Coffee Lake, 12 MB Cache)Moth...
    Date2018.11.17 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views512
    Read More
  2. Battlefield V Benchmark Performance Analysis (GPU 벤치마크)

    해외 www.techpowerup.com 사이트에서 진행한 Battlefield V GPU 벤치마크. 현행 GPU 성능 분석 참고 자료 Test SystemTest SystemProcessor:Intel Core i7-8700K @ 4.8 GHz (Coffee Lake, 12 MB Cache)Motherboard:ASUS Maximus X Code Intel ...
    Date2018.11.11 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views1091
    Read More
  3. 인텔 Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K, Core i5-9600K 공식 벤치마크

    인텔의 최신 9세대 프로세서 Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K, Core i5-9600K CPU 벤치마크 입니다. 자료 출처 - https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847.html Core i9-9900K Core i7-9700K Core i5-...
    Date2018.10.20 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views2581
    Read More
  4. 아이폰 XS 벤치마크 성능 테스트 : 더 빠르고 오래 가는 아이폰

    Jason Cross | Macworld 아이폰 X과 아이폰 8에 사용된 A11 바이오닉 프로세서는 두 기종을 2017년 가장 강력한 스마트폰의 자리에 올려 놓았다. 안드로이드와 iOS 디바이스의 성능을 직접적으로 비교하기란 어렵지만, 확실한 것은 현재 안드로이드 폰 중 ...
    Date2018.09.28 CategoryETC Reply0 Views983
    Read More
  5. 애플 iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS vs 삼성 갤럭시 노트9 성능 대결

    iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max Specs iPhone XSiPhone XS MaxStarting Price$999$1,099ProcessorA12 BionicA12 BionicScreen5.8-inch OLED (2436 x 1125 pixels)6.5-inch OLED (2688 x 1242 pixels)Storage64GB, 256GB, 512GB64GB, 256GB, ...
    Date2018.09.24 CategoryETC Reply3 Views1456
    Read More
  6. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080 성능 벤치마크 (탐스 하드웨어)

    탐스 하드웨어에서 진행한 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080 파운더스 에디션 벤치마크입니다. 출처  - https://www.tomshardware.com 지포스RTX 2080 Ti, RTX 2080의 성...
    Date2018.09.24 CategoryGPU Reply4 Views1161
    Read More
  7. 엔비디아 튜링 아키텍처 지포스RTX 2080TI, 2080 성능 확인

    엔비디아의 최신 인공지능 수퍼 GPU, RTX 2080TI / 2080의 게임 성능이 공개됐다. 테스트 게임 DirectX 12 Games Battlefield 1 – Ultra Preset Hitman – Highest Settings Shadow of the Tomb Raider – Very High Preset, TAA Star Wars: Battle...
    Date2018.09.15 CategoryGPU Reply4 Views1463
    Read More
  8. AMD 라이젠 스레드리퍼 2990WX, 2970WX, 2950X 벤치마크

    AMD가 새롭게 발표한 라이젠 스레드리퍼2 시리즈의 벤치마크 자료입니다. (탐스 하드웨어) Cores / ThreadsBase / Boost (GHz)L3 Cache (MB) PCIe 3.0 DRAM TDP MSRP Price Per Core AMD TR 2990WX 32 / 64 3.0 / 4.2 64 64 (4 to PCH) Quad DDR4-...
    Date2018.08.18 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views1383
    Read More
  9. 킹스톤 A1000 NVMe SSD 벤치마크, 저렴한 NVMe

    SpecificationsProduct A1000 240GB A1000 480GB A1000 960GB Pricing $86.96 $150.85 $314.99 Form Factor M.2 2280 S3 M.2 2280 S3M.2 2280 S3Interface / Protocol PCIe 3.0 x2 / NVMe 1.2 PCIe 3.0 x2 / NVMe 1.2PCIe 3.0 x2 / NVMe 1.2Controller P...
    Date2018.07.21 CategorySTR Reply0 Views575
    Read More
  10. HP EX920 M.2 SSD 리뷰 : Finding the Mainstream Sweet Spot

    HP 브랜드 EX920 M.2 SSD 스펙 컨트롤러 : 실리콘 모션 SM2262 낸드플래시 : 인텔 마이크론 64층 3D TLC 시퀀셜 읽기 : 3200MB/s - 3200MB/s - 3200MB/s 시퀀셜 쓰기 : 1200MB/s - 1600MB/s - 1800MB/s 랜덤 읽기 : 180k IOPS - 340k IOPS...
    Date2018.07.21 CategorySTR Reply0 Views713
    Read More
  11. Xiaomi Mi MIX 2S 스마트폰 리뷰 : 판타스틱 오버롤 밸류

     Xiaomi Mi MIX 2SSoCQualcomm Snapdragon 845 4x Kryo 385 Gold @ up to 2.80 GHz 4x Kryo 385 Silver @ up to 1.77 GHz Adreno 630 @ up to 710 MHzDisplay5.99-inch 2160x1080 (18:9) IPS LCDDimensions150.9 x 74.9 x 8.1 mm 191 gramsRAM6GB / 8GB LP...
    Date2018.07.21 CategoryETC Reply0 Views877
    Read More
  12. [8086 40주년 기념판] The Intel Core i7-8086K Review

    Intel Core i7 Coffee LakeAnandTechCoresTDPFreqL3vProDRAM DDR4iGPUiGPU TurboCore i7-8086K$4256 / 1295 W4.0 / 5.012 MBNo266624 EUs1200Core i7-8700K$3596 / 1295 W3.7 / 4.712 MBNo266624 EUs1200Core i7-8700$3036 / 1265 W3.2 / 4.612 ...
    Date2018.06.11 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views1697
    Read More
  13. AMD 라이젠 7 2700X 공식 리뷰 : 라이젠을 재정의

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X AMD Ryzen 7 1800X AMD Ryzen 7 2700 AMD Ryzen 5 1600X AMD Ryzen 5 2600X AMD Ryzen 5 2600 Intel Core i7-8700K Intel Core i7-8700 Intel Core i5-8600K Intel Core i5-8400 MSRP $329 $349 $299 $219 $229 $199 $359 $303 $257 $182 C...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views7836
    Read More
  14. 2세대 라이젠, 피나클릿지 2700X, 2700, 2600X, 2600 벤치마크

    AMD Ryzen 2000-Series CPUss Ryzen 7 2700XRyzen 7 2700Ryzen 5 2600XRyzen 5 2600CPU Cores/Threads8 / 168 / 166 / 126 / 12Base CPU Frequency3.7 GHz3.2 GHz3.6 GHz3.4 GHzTurbo CPU Frequency4.3 GHz4.1 GHz4.2 GHz3.9 GHzTDP @ Base Frequency105 W65 W...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views2750
    Read More
  15. 웨스턴디지털 WD Black 3D NAND SSD Review

    Western Digital WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO SpecificationsCapacity250 GB500 GB1 TBWD Black ModelWDS250G2X0CWDS500G2X0CWDS100T2X0CSanDisk Extreme PRO Model-SDSSDXPM2-500GSDSSDXPM2-1T00Form FactorM.2 2280 Single-SidedInterfaceNVMe PCI...
    Date2018.04.15 CategorySTR Reply0 Views1294
    Read More
  16. 인텔 하데스캐년 카비레이크-G Core i7-8809G 벤치마크

    인텔 하데스캐년 탑재 누크 The Intel NUC8i7HVK 벤치마크 Intel NUC8i7HVK (Hades Canyon) SpecificationsProcessorIntel Core i7-8809G Kaby Lake, 4C/8T, 3.1GHz (up to 4.2GHz), 14nm+, 8MB L2, 100W Package TDPMemoryKingston HyperX Im...
    Date2018.04.01 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views1500
    Read More
  17. AMD 피나클릿지) Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600 벤치마크

    AMD Ryzen 7 2700X & Ryzen 5 2600XCPU SpecificationsRyzen 2700X Pinnacle RidgeRyzen2 2600 Pinnacle Ridge  Ryzen 1700X Summit Ridge i7-6700K SkyLake Original comments by SiSoftwareMemory Speed (MHz) Max 2400 / 29332400 / 29332400 / 2666253...
    Date2018.03.17 CategoryCPU Reply5 Views2664
    Read More
  18. 삼성 갤럭시S9 스냅드래곤 845 / 엑시노스 9810 성능 확인

    Samsung Exynos SoCs SpecificationsSoCExynos 9810Exynos 8895CPU4x Exynos M3 One Core : 2.704 GHz Two Core: 2.314 GHz Four Core: 1.794 GHz 4x 512KB L2 4096KB L3 DSU4x Exynos M2 @ 2.314 GHz 2048KB L2 4x Cortex A55 @ 1.95 GHz No L2 512KB...
    Date2018.02.26 CategoryETC Reply4 Views1265
    Read More
  19. AMD 레이븐릿지, 라이젠5 2400G/라이젠3 2200G 벤치마크

    AMD가 새롭게 발표한 라이젠 CPU + 베가 GPU로 구성된 레이븐릿지 벤치마크 입니다. 라이젠5 2400G SocketAM4 CPU Cores / Threads4 / 8 CPU Base/Boost Frequency (GHz) 3.6 / 3.9 iGPU CUs11 (704 ALUs) 170달러 라이젠3 2200G SocketAM4 CPU ...
    Date2018.02.17 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views2029
    Read More
  20. 인텔 SSD 760p 512GB 리뷰 : Mainstream NVMe Done Right

      Intel SSD 760p SpecificationsCapacity128 GB256 GB512 GB1 TB2 TBForm FactorM.2 2280 single-sidedM.2 2280 double-sidedControllerIntel-customized Silicon Motion SM2262NANDIntel 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLCSequential Read1640 MB/s3210 MB/s3230...
    Date2018.02.03 CategorySTR Reply0 Views817
    Read More
  21. EVGA 지포스GTX 1070 Ti FTW2 리뷰 : iCX Brings the Lights and Sensors

    GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Specification Comparison EVGA GTX 1070 Ti FTW2NVIDIA GTX 1070 Ti Founders EditionEVGA GTX 1070 Ti SC Black Ed.CUDA Cores243224322432Texture Units152152152ROPs646464Core Clock1607+MHz1607MHz1607+MHzBoost Clock1683+MH...
    Date2018.02.03 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views867
    Read More
  22. 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 Views1434
    Read More
  23. 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 Views55873
    Read More
  24. 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 Views1502
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next
/ 24