4월 27일 (토) 오전 11:11
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...

IMGP3588_678x452.jpg


상위 모델인 960PRO에 이어 메인스트림급 신형 960EVO SSD 성능 확인


Samsung 960 EVO Specifications Comparison
 960 EVO
1TB
960 EVO 500GB960 EVO 250GB950 PRO
512GB
950 PRO
256GB
Form Factorsingle-sided
M.2 2280
single-sided
M.2 2280
ControllerSamsung PolarisSamsung UBX
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4
NANDSamsung 48-layer
256Gb TLC V-NAND
Samsung 32-layer
128Gbit MLC V-NAND
SLC Cache Size42GB22 GB13GBN/A
Sequential Read3200 MB/s3200 MB/s3200 MB/s2500 MB/s2200 MB/s
Sequential Write (SLC Cache)1900 MB/s1800 MB/s1500 MB/s1500 MB/s900 MB/s
Sequential Write (sustained)1200 MB/s600 MB/s300 MB/sN/AN/A
4KB Random Read (QD32)380k IOPS330k IOPS330k IOPS300k IOPS270k IOPS
4KB Random Write (QD32)360k IOPS330k IOPS300k IOPS110k IOPS85k IOPS
Power5.7W
(average)
5.4W
(average)
5.3W
(average)
7.0W (burst)
5.7W (average)
1.7W (idle)
6.4W (burst)
5.1 (average)
1.7W (idle)
Endurance400TB200TB100TB400TB200TB
Warranty3 Year5 Year
Launch MSRP$479.99$249.99$129.88$350$200


- 삼성 960 EVO SSD 스펙

폼팩터 : single-sided M.2 2280

컨트롤러 : 삼성 폴라리스

인터페이스 : PCIe 3.0 x4

낸드 : 48층 256Gb TLC V-NAND

캐시 : 13GB ~ 42GB

시퀀셜 읽기 : 3200 MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 1500 MB/s ~ 1900 MB/s

랜덤 읽기 : 330k IOPS ~ 380k IOPS

랜덤 쓰기 : 300k IOPS ~ 360k IOPS

전력소모 : 5.3W ~ 5.7W

보증기간 : 3년




스티커 쪽에 히트 스프레더 기능


- 테스트 시스템


AnandTech 2015 SSD Test System
CPUIntel Core i7-4770K running at 3.5GHz
(Turbo & EIST enabled, C-states disabled)
MotherboardASUS Z97 Pro (BIOS 2701)
ChipsetIntel Z97
MemoryCorsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2x8GB (9-10-9-27 2T)
GraphicsIntel HD Graphics 4600
Desktop Resolution1920 x 1200
OSWindows 8.1 x64



Steady-State 4KB Random Write Performance

The 960 EVO's steady state random write speed is not quite as fast as the 960 Pro, but it's in the same league and much faster than most consumer SSDs.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Consistency

The 960 EVO sets a new record for combining high performance with consistency. It's a bit slower than the 960 Pro, but less variable.

IOPS over time
DefaultSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TBIntel SSD 750 1.2TB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe)Samsung SM951 512GB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - AHCI)Samsung XP941 512GB (PCIe 2.0 x4 - AHCI)
25% Over-ProvisioningSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

Highly consistent performance is a good thing, but it makes for a boring graph. The transitions from peak to sustained performance modes look the same for both the 960 Pro and the 960 EVO.

Steady-State IOPS over time
DefaultSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TBIntel SSD 750 1.2TB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - NVMe)Samsung SM951 512GB (PCIe 3.0 x4 - AHCI)Samsung XP941 512GB (PCIe 2.0 x4 - AHCI)
25% Over-ProvisioningSamsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The 960 EVO responds to extra overprovisioning with even more consistent (and high) performance.



AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The 960 EVO is substantially slower than both the 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but the 960 EVO is faster than the flagship SSDs from Toshiba and Intel.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The 960 EVO delivers average service times on par with other high-end PCIe SSDs, and is still slightly faster than any non-Samsung drive.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

In the frequency of high-latency outliers, the 960 EVO is surpassed only by Samsung's 950 Pro and 960 Pro.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Despite using TLC NAND, the 960 EVO manages comparable power efficiency to the 960 Pro, putting it ahead of the fastest SATA drives but still drawing substantially more power than the most efficient SATA SSDs.



AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The 960 EVO's average data rates on the Heavy test are slower than the 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but on par with the OCZ RD400 and faster than the Intel 750.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The 960 EVO takes third place for average service times, providing lower latency than the smallest 950 Pro despite slower overall data rates. In comparison to SATA SSDs, the latency differences are all pretty minor.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Like the 960 Pro, the 960 EVO oddly has slightly fewer high-latency outliers when this test is run on a full drive instead of a freshly-erased drive. In spite of this quirk of the drive's garbage collection routines, both drives have well-controlled latency.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The 960 EVO's power efficiency on the Heavy test is virtually the same as the 960 Pro and the 950 Pro, and not significantly worse than the fastest SATA drives.



AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

As with the previous ATSB tests, the 960 EVO can't quite keep pace with Samsung's MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro SSDs, but it is slightly faster than the OCZ RD400. On this test the 960 EVO suffers relatively more from a full drive, where it falls behind the RD400.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

Average service times are slightly slower for the 960 EVO than Samsung's other PCIe SSDs, and the competing PCIe SSDs are a step further behind.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The 960 EVO is tied for first place with minimal high-latency outliers, but all of the PCIe SSDs are much better than the SATA drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

Once again the 960 EVO's power efficiency is about the same as Samsung's other drives, showing that its higher instantaneous power draw than SATA drives is compensated by it completing the test quicker.



Iometer - 4KB Random Read

It is unsurprising to see that the TLC-based 960 EVO has slower random read speeds than the MLC-based 950 Pro and 960 Pro, but the 960 EVO still manages to be faster than all the non-Samsung drives.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

The 960 EVO's power consumption is essentially the same as Samsung's other drives, which puts it at an efficiency disadvantage to their MLC PCIe SSDs but more efficient than all the lower-performing drives.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

As with Samsung's other SSDs, random read speed scales with queue depth until hitting a limit at QD16.

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.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write

The Samsung 960 EVO's random write speed is essentially tied with the 960 Pro and the OCZ RD400A, while the Intel 750 holds on to a comfortable lead.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

The 960 EVO is not as power efficient as the 960 Pro, but it is still far better than everything else.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The scaling behavior of the 960 EVO is essentially the same as the 960 Pro: full performance is reached at QD4, and there's no indication of any severe thermal throttling.



Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read

The 960 EVO provides slightly higher sustained sequential read speeds than the 960 Pro in a test where both are largely thermally limited. No other SSD comes close to offering this level of performance at low queue depths.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read (Power)

With power consumption slightly lower than the 960 Pro, the 960 EVO actually manages to set an efficiency record.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The competing drives that have large heatsinks can provide better performance at higher queue depths, but within the constraints of the M.2 form factor Samsung has a huge advantage.

Sequential Write Performance

The sequential write test writes 128kB 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, and the drive is filled before the test begins. 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.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write

The sustained sequential write speed of the 960 EVO is far slower than the 960 Pro and several of the better-cooled competitors, but the 960 EVO is actually slightly faster than last year's 950 Pro.

Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write (Power)

The 960 EVO doesn't break any records for power efficiency, but only because the 960 Pro exists. The MLC-based competition is less efficient than the TLC-based 960 EVO.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

For almost all of the sequential write speed test, the 960 EVO is thermally limited, but it is clearly able to do much more within that limit than the 950 Pro or OCZ RD400 could.



Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write

The 960 EVO is essentially tied for second place with the OCZ RD400 and significantly behind the 960 Pro in overall performance on mixed random I/O.

Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write (Power)

The 960 EVO's power efficiency on this test is not great, but it is a big improvement over last year's 950 Pro.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The 960 EVO's high performance score comes primarily from its great performance in the pure write final phase of the test. Throughout the rest of the test, the 960 EVO is not as fast as the 950 Pro.

Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance

The mixed sequential access test covers the entire span of the drive and uses a queue depth of one. It starts with a pure read test and gradually increases the proportion of writes, finishing with pure writes. Each subtest lasts for 3 minutes, for a total test duration of 18 minutes. The drive is filled before the test starts.

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write

The 960 EVO's mixed sequential I/O performance is the second-fastest among M.2 SSDs and third place overall. Performance is modestly improved over the 950 Pro.

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write (Power)

The 960 EVO's power efficiency is better than most PCIe SSDs, but still well behind the 960 Pro.

Samsung 960 EVO 1TBCrucial MX300 1050GBIntel SSD 750 1.2TBIntel SSD 750 400GBOCZ RD400 1TB (M.2)OCZ RD400A 1TBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung 850 Pro 1TBSamsung 950 Pro 256GBSamsung 950 Pro 512GBSamsung 960 Pro 2TB

The 960 EVO's performance in the pure read first phase of the test is great, but its performance with an 80/20 mix is much worse than the 950 Pro or OCZ RD400. The worst-case performance is also not as good as the RD400 or 960 Pro.


Incompressible Sequential Read Performance

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance

Both AS-SSD sequential tests show that the 960 EVO's peak performance really is second only to the 960 Pro, even if in longer tests some other models are able to outperform the 960 EVO.

Idle Power Consumption

Since the ATSB tests based on real-world usage cut idle times short to 25ms, their power consumption scores paint an inaccurate picture of the relative suitability of drives for mobile use. During real-world client use, a solid state drive will spend far more time idle than actively processing commands. Our testbed doesn't support the deepest DevSlp power saving mode that SATA drives can implement, but we can measure the power usage in the intermediate slumber state where both the host and device ends of the SATA link enter a low-power state and the drive is free to engage its internal power savings measures.

We also report the drive's idle power consumption while the SATA link is active and not in any power saving state. Drives are required to be able to wake from the slumber state in under 10 milliseconds, but that still leaves plenty of room for them to add latency to a burst of I/O. Because of this, many desktops default to either not using SATA Aggressive Link Power Management (ALPM) at all or to only enable it partially without making use of the device-initiated power management (DIPM) capability. Additionally, SATA Hot-Swap is incompatible with the use of DIPM, so our SSD testbed usually has DIPM turned off during performance testing.

Idle Power Consumption
Active Idle Power Consumption (No LPM)


출처 - http://www.anandtech.com






  1. 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 Views1809
    Read More
  2. Ryzen 7 3700x vs i7 9700k Test in 10 Games

    Games : Assassin's Creed Odyssey Project Cars - 01:10 Battlefield 5 - 02:27 Rainbow Six Siege - 03:37 The Witcher 3 - 04:27 Metro Exodus - 05:38 Grand Theft Auto V - 06:43 HITMAN 2 - 08:04 The Division 2 - 09:09 Watch Dogs 2 - 10:05 Syst...
    Date2019.07.21 CategoryCPU Reply1 Views1857
    Read More
  3. 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 Views7924
    Read More
  4. AMD 라이젠 3600 VS 인텔 9600K 성능 승부

    라이젠 3600 과 인텔 9600K 의 기본 벤치 및 게임성능을 비교 테스트 해봤습니다. 라이젠 3600의 경우 아직까지 바이오스 부분과 안정화 그리고 게임의 경우 최적화 부분에서 약간 문제가 있는것 같습니다. How does AMD’s new Ryzen 5 3600 CPU co...
    Date2019.07.21 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views3484
    Read More
  5. AMD 라이젠9 3900X vs 인텔 Core i9-9900K 게임 성능 대결

    Intel Core i9-9900KAMD Ryzen 9 3900XArchitectureCoffee LakeZen 2Socket1151AM4Cores / Threads8 / 16 12 / 24 Base Frequency (GHz)3.63.8Boost Frequency (Active Cores - GHz)1/2 Cores - 5.0 3/4 Cores - 4.8 5-8 Cores - 4.7 4.6 (1 Core)L3 Ca...
    Date2019.07.13 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views3343
    Read More
  6. 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 Views1034
    Read More
  7. 공식) AMD 신형 3700X, 3900X vs 인텔 9900K, 9700K 승부

    AMD가 3세대 라이젠(젠2) 아키텍처 기반의 3700X, 3900X 를 공식 발표했다. 먼저 3700X는 8코어 16스레드, 베이스 3.6, 부스트 4.4의 동작 클럭과 32MB L3 캐시, TDP 65와트의 스펙으로 가격은 329달러 3900X는 12코어 24스레드, 베이스 3.8, ...
    Date2019.07.07 CategoryCPU Reply6 Views1957
    Read More
  8. 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 Views1696
    Read More
  9. 삼성 갤럭시 폴드 리뷰 : 더 버지 / 월 스트리트 저널 / CNBC

    삼성전자는 4월 26일 스크린 문제에 대한 보도에도 불구하고 여전히 갤럭시 폴드(Galaxy Fold)를 출시하고 있습니다. 이러한 문제에도 불구하고 우리의 리뷰는 가장 중요한 질문에 답합니다 : 스크린, 카메라, 성능 및 소프트웨어 경험이 멈추었습니까? ...
    Date2019.04.21 CategoryETC Reply5 Views3614
    Read More
  10. 삼성 갤럭시S10 : 엑시노스 9820 vs 스냅드래곤 855 승부

    삼성 갤럭시S10 스마트폰에 탑재되는 엑시노스 9820과 스냅드래곤 855에 대한 성능 비교 In PCMark’s Web Browsing test, the new Galaxy S10s both perform well. What is interesting to see here is that compared to the scores we initially ran o...
    Date2019.03.01 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views7832
    Read More
  11. 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 Views2330
    Read More
  12. 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 Views3253
    Read More
  13. 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 Views3327
    Read More
  14. Intel Core i9-9980XE CPU 리뷰, 18코어 36스레드 성능은?

    Intel Core i9-9980XE Specifications Socket LGA 2066 Cores / Threads 18 / 36 TDP 165W Base Frequency 3.0 GHz Turbo Frequency (2.0 / 3.0) 4.4 / 4.5 GHz L3 Cache 24.75MB Integrated Graphics No Graphics Base/Turbo (MHz) N/A Memory Suppo...
    Date2019.01.13 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views2239
    Read More
  15. 인텔 순정 i5 8400 vs. AMD 오버클럭 Ryzen 5 2600X OC 승부

    테스트 시스템 [ 인텔 시스템 ] ○ CPU: Intel Core i5-8400 3.8GHz, Hexa Core / Coffee Lake ○ Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H55 ○ GPU: MSI GeForce GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X 11G ○ Motherboard: MSI Z370 GAMING PRO CARBON ○ PSU: MODECOM VOLCANO 750W 1...
    Date2019.01.12 CategoryCPU Reply2 Views1858
    Read More
  16. 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 Views9644
    Read More
  17. 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 Views2285
    Read More
  18. 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 Views5656
    Read More
  19. 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 Views1955
    Read More
  20. 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 Views2423
    Read More
  21. 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 Views2481
    Read More
  22. 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 Views2147
    Read More
  23. 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 Views7389
    Read More
  24. 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 Views1239
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26 Next
/ 26