3월 29일 (금) 오전 9:37
랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

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

"SAN"은 "Storage Area Network"...
웹 애플리케이션에서의 버퍼 오버...
XSS(크로스 사이트 스크립팅) 취...


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. RTX 4070 vs. RX 6800 XT tested in 12 games | 1080p vs. 1440p vs. 4K

    RTX 4070 vs. RX 6800 XT tested in 12 games | 1080p vs. 1440p vs. 4K  
    Date2023.07.18 CategoryGPU Reply1 Views851
    Read More
  2. 디아블로4 마을 프레임 벤치마크

    ㄴ MSI GeForce RTX 4090 SUPRIM X 24G ㄴ MSI GeForce RTX 4080 16GB GAMING X TRIO ㄴ MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING X TRIO WHITE 12G ㄴ MSI GeForce RTX 4070 GAMING X TRIO 12G ㄴ MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GAMING X TRIO D6 8GB  
    Date2023.07.18 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views651
    Read More
  3. AMD 라데온 RX 6600 XT vs RTX 3060 Ti Test in 8 Games

    AMD 라데온 RX 6600 XT vs 엔비디아 지포스 RTX 3060 Ti Test in 8 Games / RX 6600 XT 8GB vs RTX 3060 Ti 8GB l 1440p
    Date2021.08.12 CategoryGPU Reply1 Views2158
    Read More
  4. AMD RX 6900 XT vs. GRFORCE RTX 3090 Test in 8 Games

    RADEON RX 6900 XT 16GB vs GeForce RTX 3090 24GB l 2160p Buy Ryzen 5 3600 at the best price on newegg.com - https://bit.ly/30Es4Qk​ Games : Battlefield V - 0:00​ Red Dead Redemption 2 - 0:58​ Assassin's Creed Valhalla (U...
    Date2021.04.21 CategoryGPU Reply1 Views1465
    Read More
  5. 지포스 RTX 3060 Ti vs. 라데온 RX 5700 XT

    지포스 RTX 3060 Ti vs. 라데온 RX 5700 XT GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB EAGLE ASUS ROG Strix AMD Radeon RX 5700XT 8GB intel Core i7-10700K MSI MAG Z490 TOMAHAWK Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD 1TB Corsair RM850x White 80PLUS Gold 850W...
    Date2021.04.18 CategoryGPU Reply1 Views1321
    Read More
  6. AMD RADEON RX 6700 XT vs. NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 3070

    AMD RADEON RX 6700 XT vs. NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 3070 ZOTAC GeForce RTX 3070 Twin Edge 8GB ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger 12GB intel Core i7-10700K MSI MAG Z490 TOMAHAWK Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD 1TB Corsair RM850x White 80PLUS Gold ...
    Date2021.04.18 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views1269
    Read More
  7. AMD 라데온 RX 6800 XT 리뷰 - NVIDIA is in Trouble

    AMD가 엔비디아를 위협할 새로운 라데온 RX 6800 XT를 발표했다. Radeon RX 6800 XT Market Segment Analysis PriceShader UnitsROPsCore ClockBoost ClockMemory ClockGPUTransistorsMemoryRX Vega 64$4004096641247 MHz1546 MHz953 MHzVe...
    Date2020.11.28 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views1587
    Read More
  8. 엔비디아 지포스 RTX 3090 파운더스 에디션 리뷰: 절대 황제

    바로 하단 게시물 3080 리뷰에 이어 상위 모델인 3090의 리뷰입니다. 3090은 3080 대비 GPU 코어(FP32/INT32), 텐서 코어, RT 코어가 각각 10496 / 5248 / 328개로 증가하였으며 VRAM 도 384비트의 24GB로 증가하고 있습니다. ...
    Date2020.09.30 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views2276
    Read More
  9. 엔비디아 지포스 RTX 3080 파운더스 에디션 리뷰: 폭발적인 성능

    엔비디아가 마침내 새로운 30 시리즈를 출시했습니다. 새로운GA102 아키텍처는 삼성의 8N 프로세스를 사용하여 제조됩니다. TSMC의 N7 노드가 전반적으로 더 좋지만 Nvidia의 A100을 포함하여 비용이 더 많이 들고 현재 수요가 ...
    Date2020.09.30 CategoryGPU Reply3 Views1762
    Read More
  10. 라데온만 안되는 그것...유튜브 동영상 가속

    01:12 테스트준비 01:47 전원옵션 고성능 VS 균형조정 전력소비 차이 03:03 인텔 8700K UHD630 내장그래픽 유튜브 동영상가속 테스트 03:42 AMD 라데온 RX580 8G 유튜브 동영상가속 테스트 04:32 NVIDIA 지포스 GTX1060 6G 유튜브 동영상가속 테스트 05:...
    Date2019.09.21 CategoryGPU Reply4 Views1838
    Read More
  11. 현존 게이밍 지존 승부) 인텔 9600K vs 9700K vs 9900k 인 게임 테스트

    Games : Metro Exodus Battlefield 5 - 01:16 Assassin's Creed Odyssey - 02:30 HITMAN 2 - 03:43 Forza Horizon 4 - 05:27 Far Cry New Dawn - 06:31 Grand Theft Auto V - 07:40 The Witcher 3 - 09:16 System: Windows 10 Pro Intel i5 9600k 5.0Ghz...
    Date2019.08.04 CategoryGPU Reply1 Views1801
    Read More
  12. 라데온RX 5700 XT vs RTX 2070 SUPER vs RTX 2080 Test in 9 Games

    RADEON RX 5700 XT vs GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER vs RTX 2080 (i9 9900k) World of Warships - https://wgaffiliate.com/?a=2736&c=469... Games : Assassin's Creed Odyssey Battlefield 5 - 01:00 Kingdom Come Deliverance - 02:22 Metro Exodus - ...
    Date2019.07.21 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views7920
    Read More
  13. AMD 라데온RX 5700XT, RX 5700 벤치마크 (NAVI)

    AMD 라데온RX 5700XT AMD 라데온RX 5700 00 finds itself going up against GeForce RTX 2060. Radeon RX 5700 XT GeForce RTX 2060 Super Radeon RX 5700 GeForce RTX 2060 FE Architecture (GPU) RDNA (Navi 10) T...
    Date2019.07.13 CategoryGPU Reply0 Views1030
    Read More
  14. 엔비디아 지포스RTX 2070 Super & RTX 2060 Super 리뷰

    엔비디아가 AMD의 라데온 RX 5700 시리즈를 견제하기 위해 기존 RTX 시리즈에 "수퍼(SUPER)"로 명명한 신규 제품을 출시했다. NVIDIA GeForce RTX 20 Series LineupCardPriceGeForce RTX 2080 TiMSRP: $999 Street Price: $1249GeForce RTX 2080 Super...
    Date2019.07.07 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views1691
    Read More
  15. Nvidia 지포스GTX 1660 Ti 6GB 리뷰 : Turing Without The RTX

    EVGA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti XC Black Gaming GeForce RTX 2060 FE GeForce GTX 1060 FE GeForce GTX 1070 FE Architecture (GPU) Turing (TU116) Turing (TU106)Pascal (GP106)Pascal (GP104) CUDA Cores 1536 1920 1280 1920 Peak FP32 Compute 5.4...
    Date2019.02.26 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views2326
    Read More
  16. AMD 라데온7 16GB 리뷰, 절망의 라데온 (Radeon VII)

    AMD의 신형 라데온7이 마침내 발매 되었습니다. 라데온7은 GPU 측면으로 종합 16GB HBM2 메모리가 장착되어 있습니다. 라데온7의 GPGPU 연산 성능은 FP16과 FP32 모두 RTX 2080보다 떨어지며 FP64는 앞섭니다. ...
    Date2019.02.08 CategoryGPU Reply4 Views3245
    Read More
  17. 엔비디아 지포스RTX 2060 6G 파운더스 에디션 리뷰

    엔비디아의 차세대 "튜링 아키텍처" 적용, RTX 2080TI - 2080 - 2070에 이은 RTX 2060 파운더스 에디션 리뷰 RTX 2060은 1920 쿠다코어, 48ROPs, 베이스 클럭 1365MHz, 부스트 클럭 1680MHz, 메모리 클럭은 GDDR6 14Gbps, 192비트 메...
    Date2019.01.13 CategoryGPU Reply3 Views3323
    Read More
  18. 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 Views9640
    Read More
  19. 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 Views2281
    Read More
  20. 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 Views2477
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
/ 11