3월 29일 (금) 오후 11:47
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...

q300_678x452_678x452.jpg


Toshiba Q300 SATA SSDs
Capacity960GB480GB240GB120GB
NANDToshiba A19nm 128Gb TLC
ControllerToshiba TC58
Sequential Read550 MB/s
Sequential Write530 MB/s
4kB Random Read IOPS87k
4kB Random Write IOPS83k
Endurance Rating240TB120TB60TB30TB
Active Power Consumption5.1W
Idle Power Consumption1.1W
Warranty3 years

- 도시바 Q300 SSD 스펙


라인업 : 120 - 240 - 480 - 960GB

낸드 플래시 : 도시바 A19나노 128Gb TLC

메인 컨트롤러 : 도시바 TC58

시퀀셜 읽기 : 550 MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 530 MB/s

4kB 랜덤 읽기 : 87k

4kB 랜덤 쓰기 : 83k

액티브 전력소모 : 5.1와트

아이들 전력소모 : 1.1와트

워런티 : 3년



좌 : 도시바 Q300 / 우 : OCZ Trion 100  = 같은 모델


[ 테스트 시스템 ]

CPUIntel Core i7-4770K running at 3.5GHz (Turbo & EIST enabled, C-states disabled)
MotherboardASUS Z97 Deluxe (BIOS 2501)
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 Q300's steady-state performance is on par with the Trion 100: low, but well above the Crucial BX200 and SanDisk Ultra II. The latter drive uses SanDisk's second-generation 19nm TLC that is made on the same process as the flash in the Q300.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Consistency

The write consistency of the Q300 is poor, but that's the case for most low-end drives - even the ones using MLC flash. As long as the performance has a reasonably high floor, a lot of variance is tolerable for client workloads. The Q300 is noticeably less consistent than the Trion 100.

IOPS over time
DefaultToshiba Q300 480GBOCZ ARC 100 240GBPlextor M6V 256GBSamsung 850 EVO 500GBSamsung 850 Pro 256GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 240GBSanDisk Ultra II 240GBOCZ Trion 100 240GBOCZ Trion 100 480GBOCZ Trion 100 960GBCorsair Neutron XT 480GBCrucial BX100 500GBCrucial MX100 512GBCrucial MX200 500GBOCZ Vector 180 480GBSamsung SSD 850 Pro 512GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB
25% Over-ProvisioningToshiba Q300 480GBOCZ Trion 100 240GBOCZ Trion 100 480GBOCZ Trion 100 960GBCorsair Neutron XT 480GBCrucial BX100 500GBCrucial MX100 512GBOCZ ARC 100 240GBOCZ Vector 180 480GBSamsung 850 EVO M.2 500GBSamsung SSD 850 Pro 512GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GBSanDisk Ultra II 240GB

It takes about ten minutes of full-speed writing for the Q300 to burn through its spare area, which is pretty good. The steady state that it reaches is mostly consistent save for some extreme outliers.

Steady-State IOPS over time
DefaultToshiba Q300 480GBOCZ ARC 100 240GBPlextor M6V 256GBSamsung 850 EVO 500GBSamsung 850 Pro 256GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 240GBSanDisk Ultra II 240GBOCZ Trion 100 240GBOCZ Trion 100 480GBOCZ Trion 100 960GBCorsair Neutron XT 480GBCrucial BX100 500GBCrucial MX100 512GBCrucial MX200 500GBOCZ Vector 180 480GBSamsung 850 EVO 1TBSamsung SSD 850 Pro 512GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB
25% Over-ProvisioningToshiba Q300 480GBOCZ Trion 100 240GBOCZ Trion 100 480GBOCZ Trion 100 960GBCorsair Neutron XT 480GBCrucial BX100 500GBCrucial MX100 512GBOCZ ARC 100 240GBOCZ Vector 180 480GBSamsung 850 EVO M.2 500GBSamsung SSD 850 Pro 512GBSanDisk Extreme Pro 480GBSanDisk Ultra II 240GB

The Q300's steady-state write performance is around 1500 IOPS with several brief excursions per minute up to 30k+ IOPS. With extra space reserved, the variance increases and the steady state ranges from about 1100 IOPS to about 5500 IOPS.



AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Q300's average data rate during The Destroyer was slightly better than the Trion 100 480GB, and puts the Q300 around the middle of the pack and well ahead of the Crucial BX200. It's also slightly ahead of the Plextor M6V, a drive that uses MLC flash and prioritizes power efficiency over performance.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The average service time of the Q300 on The Destroyer is considerably worse than the Trion 100, and near the bottom of the chart. The performance consistency test showed the Q300 as significantly more variable than the Trion 100 before reaching steady state, so this result isn't inexplicable.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The Q300 has more severe latency outliers than the Trion 100, though neither drive is great at limiting latency.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

The Q300 shows improved power efficiency over the Trion 100, but the MLC drives are all better.


AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The Q300's average data rate on the ATSB Heavy test is the same as the Trion 100: low but not the worst we've seen, and about half what the Samsung 850 Pro delivers. All of the planar TLC drives perform worse than all of the MLC drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The Q300's average service time is again worse than the Trion 100, and is about twice that of the slowest MLC drive. The BX200 puts things in perspective: the Q300 is a disappointment, but isn't truly broken.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Most MLC drives are able to keep latency under 10ms almost all of the time, but the TLC drives get overwhelmed during the more intense parts of the test. The Q300 is worse than the Trion 100 480GB, but this time isn't worse than the smaller Trion 100.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The Q300 continues to be slightly more power efficient than the Trion 100, but the gap separating it from the MLC drives is quite clear. The SanDisk Ultra II managed to get much better efficiency out of nearly-identical TLC flash.


AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

The performance rankings for the ATSB Light test are similar to the more intense tests, but the spread is much smaller and the difference between starting with an empty or full drive is much larger. A low-end MLC drive usually won't provide noticeably better performance than the Q300 on workloads this light.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The latency of the Q300 is again near the bottom of the charts and worse than the Trion 100, but even for a full drive the average is only twice that of the best MLC SATA drives. The Q300 is underperforming for its capacity class, but is still reasonable for a SSD.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

On light workloads like this, most drives don't stand out from the crowd in terms of energy efficiency. The top performers are mostly drawing proportionately more power and end up using the same amount of energy.


Iometer - 4KB Random Read


Iometer - 4KB Random Write



Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read


Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write


Incompressible Sequential Read Performance

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance


Idle Power Consumption (HIPM+DIPM)


Active Idle Power Consumption (No ALPM)


출처 - http://www.anandtech.com






  1. 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 Views2149
    Read More
  2. 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 Views4922
    Read More
  3. 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 Views5458
    Read More
  4. 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 Views3390
    Read More
  5. 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 Views4131
    Read More
  6. 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 Views33900
    Read More
  7. 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 Views7082
    Read More
  8. 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 Views57269
    Read More
  9. 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 Views23159
    Read More
  10. 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 Views4380
    Read More
  11. 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 Views2332
    Read More
  12. 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 Views22842
    Read More
  13. AMD 라데온RX 580 & RX 570 리뷰 : A Second Path to Polaris

    AMD가 새로 발표한 RX 580 & RX 570 리뷰 AMD Radeon RX Series Specification Comparison AMD Radeon RX 580 (8GB)AMD Radeon RX 570AMD Radeon RX 480 (8GB)AMD Radeon RX 470Stream Processors2304 (36 CUs)2048 (32 CUs)2304 (36 CUs)2048 (32...
    Date2017.04.23 CategoryGPU Reply6 Views18334
    Read More
  14. AMD 라이젠5 1600X, 1500X 성능 vs 인텔 7600k

    Ryzen 5는 선행 발매된 Ryzen 7의 하위 브랜드로 ZEN 마이크로 아키텍처를 바탕으로 14nm FinFET 프로세스에서 제조된 CPU 제품군이다. Ryzen 5의 라인업에는 6코어 CPU와 4코어 CPU가 혼재하는데 이번 테스트의 Ryzen 5 1600X는 6코어 12스레드 CP...
    Date2017.04.16 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views8664
    Read More
  15. 퀄컴 스냅드래곤 835 vs 애플 A10 AP 성능 비교

    Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs: Three GenerationsSoCSnapdragon 835 (MSM8998)Snapdragon 820 / 821 (MSM8996 / MSM8996 Pro)Snapdragon 810 (MSM8994)CPU4x Kryo 280 Performance @ 2.45GHz 4x Kryo 280 Efficiency @ 1.90GHz2x Kryo @ 2.15GHz / 2.34GHz ...
    Date2017.04.08 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views3041
    Read More
  16. 라이젠 1800X+지포스GTX 1080TI 조합 vs 인텔 조합 게임 대결

    신형 지포스GTX 1080TI와 8코어 16스레드 CPU 조합 성능 테스트 선수 1번은 인텔의 8코어 16스레드 Core i7 5960X + 지포스GTX 1080TI 조합 선수 2번은 AMD의 8코어 16스레드 라이젠 1800X + 지포스GTX 1080TI 조합 각각의 조합으로 여러 부문에서 성능...
    Date2017.03.11 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views30318
    Read More
  17. 지포스GTX 1080TI 성능, 파스칼 타이탄X보다 상위

    엔비디아가 새롭게 발표한 지포스GTX 1080TI 리뷰 GeForce GTX 980 TiRadeon R9 Fury XGeForce GTX 1070GeForce GTX 1080GeForce GTX 1080 TiGeForce Titan XPShader Units281640961920256035843584ROPs966464648896Graphics ProcessorGM200FijiGP104...
    Date2017.03.10 CategoryGPU Reply2 Views4828
    Read More
  18. 라이젠 1800X vs 브로드웰-E 6900K vs 카비레이크 7700K 한판

    라이젠 스펙 및 기본 정보들은 바로 아래 게시글들을 확인해주시기 바라며 벤치마크 데이터만 업데이트 합니다. 각각의 테스트 부문으로 인텔과 AMD CPU의 장단점을 비교해보시기 바랍니다. 출처 - 탐스 하드웨어 (http://www.tomshardware.co...
    Date2017.03.05 CategoryCPU Reply2 Views6950
    Read More
  19. AMD 라이젠 1800X vs 인텔 Core i7-5960X 성능 비교

    Ryzen 7 1800X ZEN 마이크로 아키텍처를 채용한 AMD의 새로운 CPU "Ryzen 7". 그 최상위 모델인 "Ryzen 7 1800X"를 발매 전 차용 기회를 얻어 벤치마크 테스트로 그 실력을 확인했다. 8코어 16스레드 CPU "Ryzen 7 1800X"Ryzen 7 1800X는 새로운 CP...
    Date2017.03.04 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views5318
    Read More
  20. AMD 라이젠 1800X, 1700X, 1700 정식 벤치마크 (게임 성능 제외)

    AMD Ryzen SKUs Cores/ ThreadsBase/ TurboL3TDPCostLaunch DateRyzen 7 1800X8/163.6/4.016 MB95 W$4993/2/2017Ryzen 7 1700X8/163.4/3.816 MB95 W$3993/2/2017Ryzen 7 17008/163.0/3.716 MB65 W$3293/2/2017 AMD가 마침내 신형 프로세서 "라이젠" 공...
    Date2017.03.03 CategoryCPU Reply4 Views5812
    Read More
  21. 쿼드코어 샌디브릿지 2600K vs 듀얼코어 카비레이크 7350K 성능 대결

    흥미로운 한판, 샌디브릿지 2600K vs 카비레이크 7350K 성능 대결 by http://www.anandtech.com CPU Die Size Comparison Numbers in table are to nearest degree of known accuracy Data from Intel or Trusted Sources (Chipworks/PCWatch)CPU...
    Date2017.02.10 CategoryCPU Reply3 Views8299
    Read More
  22. 인텔 카비레이크 Core i7 7700K 리뷰 - 새로운 챔피언

    인텔의 신형 7세대 카비레이크 7700K 리뷰 - http://www.anandtech.com Intel Kaby Lake S SKUs Cores/ ThreadsBase/ TurboIGPL3eDRAMTDPCosti7-7700K4/84.2/4.5HD 6308 MB-91 W$305i7-77004/83.6/4.2HD 6308 MB-65 W$272i7-7700T4/82.9/3.8HD 6308 MB-...
    Date2017.01.24 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views84332
    Read More
  23. 엔비디아 쿼드로 P6000 테스트, 파스칼 타이탄X 격파

    엔비디아 쿼드로 P6000 스펙 그래픽 아키텍처 : 파스칼 쿠다코어 : 3840 (파스칼 타이탄X : 3584) 베이스 클럭 : 1417MHz 부스트 클럭 : 1530MHz 싱글 프리시전 성능 : 12테라플롭스 메모리 대역 : 432 기가바이트 퍼 세컨드 그...
    Date2017.01.04 CategoryGPU Reply3 Views6759
    Read More
  24. 플렉스터 M8Pe 512GB SSD 리뷰 (NVMe PCIe 3.0)

    Plextor M8Pe Series Specifications Comparison 128 GB256 GB512 GB1 TBForm FactorM8PeY: Half height half length PCIe add-in card (HHHL) M8PeG: M.2 2280 with heatspreader M8PeGN: M.2 2280 without heatspreaderControllerMarvell 88...
    Date2016.12.30 CategorySTR Reply0 Views2846
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26 Next
/ 26