랩터 인터내셔널에 오신걸 환영 합니다
>

logo

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

나스 전문업체 시놀로지(Syno...
비아 테크놀로지(VIA Technologie...
모니터 유명업체 BenQ는 SIEE...
ASUS는 Intel 300 시리즈 칩셋을 ...
□ 개요  o VMWare社는 자사 제품...
□ 개요  o 최근 입사지원서로 위...
□ 개요  o Cisco社는 자사 제품에...
조회 수 1181


Western Digital WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO Specifications
Capacity250 GB500 GB1 TB
WD Black ModelWDS250G2X0CWDS500G2X0CWDS100T2X0C
SanDisk Extreme PRO Model-SDSSDXPM2-500GSDSSDXPM2-1T00
Form FactorM.2 2280 Single-Sided
InterfaceNVMe PCIe 3 x4
ControllerWestern Digital in-house
NANDSanDisk 64-layer 3D TLC
DRAMSK Hynix DDR4-2400
Sequential Read3000 MB/s3400 MB/s3400 MB/s
Sequential Write1600 MB/s2500 MB/s2800 MB/s
4KB Random Read220k IOPS410k IOPS500k IOPS
4KB Random Write170k IOPS330k IOPS400k IOPS
PowerPeak (10µs)9.24 W9.24 W9.24 W
PS3 Idle70 mW70 mW100 mW
PS4 Idle2.5 mW2.5 mW2.5 mW
Write Endurance200 TBW
0.4 DWPD
300 TBW
0.3 DWPD
600 TBW
0.3 DWPD
Warranty5 years
MSRP$119.99
(48¢/GB)
$229.99
(46¢/GB)
$449.99
(45¢/GB)


WD 블랙 SSD 라인업 : WDS250G2X0C(250GB) / WDS500G2X0C(500G) / WDS100T2X0C(1TB)

폼 팩터 : M.2 2280 싱글 사이드

인터페이스 : NVMe PCIe 3 x4

컨트롤러 : Western Digital in-house

낸드 플래시 : 샌디스크 64층 3D TLC

DRAM : SK 하이닉스 DDR4-2400

시퀀셜 읽기 : 3000MB/s ~ 3400MB/s

시퀀셜 쓰기 : 1600MB/s ~ 2800MB/s

랜덤 읽기 : 220k IOPS ~ 500k IOPS

랜덤 쓰기 : 170k IOPS ~ 400k IOPS

워런티 : 5년

가격 : $119.99 / $229.99 / $449.99


IMGP1081_575px.jpg



[ 테스트 시스템 ]


AnandTech 2017/2018 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 3.1


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 new WD Black on The Destroyer is almost as fast as Samsung's TLC-based 960 EVO and their newer PM981 OEM drive. Where the original WD Black NVMe SSD was clearly a low-end NVMe drive and no faster than SATA SSDs on this test, the new WD Black is competitive at the high end.

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

The average latencies from the WD Black are competitive with Samsung's TLC drives, and the 99th percentile latencies are the fastest we've seen from any flash-based SSD for this capacity class.

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

The average read latencies from the WD Black on The Destroyer are as good as any flash-based SSD we've tested. Average write latencies are great but Samsung's top drives are still clearly faster.

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

The WD Black has the best 99th percentile read latency scores aside from Intel's Optane SSD 900P, but the 99th percentile write latency scores are only in the second tier of drives.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The load power consumption of the new WD Black is a huge improvement over the previous SSD to bear this name. The new model uses less than half as much energy over the course of The Destroyer, putting it in first place slightly ahead of the Toshiba XG5.


AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

The average data rates from the new WD Black SSD on the Heavy test are essentially tied with the Samsung 960 EVO. Premium drives like the Samsung 960 PRO and Intel Optane SSD 900P are faster, but the WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO NVMe SSDs still clearly belong in the high-end market segment.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the WD Black on the Heavy test are among the best from any flash-based SSD. The 99th percentile write latency of the WD Black shows much less performance loss from a full drive than the Toshiba XG5 or Samsung 960 EVO.

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

The WD Black is one of the top drives for average read latency, and the average write latency is only slightly higher than that of the Samsung 960 EVO. The performance hit when the test is run on a full drive is no worse than what most MLC-based drives suffer.

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

Western Digital's new controller architecture provides great QoS for read operations, with 99th percentile latencies lower than any of the competing flash-based SSDs. The 99th percentile write latencies are top notch but don't stand out from the crowd.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The WD Black and SanDisk Extreme PRO join the Toshiba XG5 as some of the few NVMe SSDs that offer load power efficiency comparable to good SATA SSDs. The total energy used during the heavy test is only slightly higher than the Crucial MX500 and Western Digital's own SATA drives with the same 64L 3D TLC NAND.


AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The WD Black's average data rates on the Light test are slightly slower than the Samsung 960 EVO when the test is run on an empty drive, and a bit faster when the drive is full. The Samsung PM981 is the only drive that has a clear lead in both cases, and even then it isn't a very big margin. The worst-case performance here from the new WD Black is substantially faster than the best-case from last year's WD Black.

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

The average latencies from the WD Black during the Light test are as low as any SSD offers. The 99th percentile latencies are not quite as fast as Samsung's best drives offer, except that the full-drive performance is better than the 960 EVO.

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

There are quite a few SSDs with average read latency scores that are close to or slightly better than the WD Black, and even the low-end NVMe SSDs keep the average read latency down to a fraction of a millisecond on the Light test. The average write latencies from the WD Black are essentially tied for first place with Samsung's drives.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)The WD Black offers great 99th percentile write latency on the Light test as its SLC cache never fills. The 99th percentile read latency doesn't rank quite as high, but the full-drive score is very good.

ATSB - Light (Power)

As with the Heavy test, the only NVMe SSD we've tested that can match the WD Black's power efficiency is the Toshiba XG5. These drives get the job done much faster than a SATA drive without using any more energy.


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 burst random read performance of the WD Black isn't exceptional, but it is an improvement over the original WD Black SSD and is only slightly behind the Samsung 960 EVO.

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

The sustained random read performance of the WD Black is a small improvement over last year's model, but not quite enough to catch up to Samsung. In addition, the recent Intel 760p also comes out slightly ahead of the WD Black.

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

The power efficiency of the WD Black during random reads is better than any other TLC drive as it barely draws any more power than a SATA drive during this 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)

Our WD Black sample oddly returned a substantially better burst random write score than the SanDisk Extreme PRO that should be identical. Since both scores are at the top of the chart, unusually high variance doesn't actually present a problem.

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

The new WD Black offers top-tier performance on the sustained random write test, well ahead of Samsung's current retail offerings and just barely behind the PM981 OEM drive that Samsung's next generation retail drives will be based upon. Last year's WD Black was just barely faster than SATA drives.

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

The overhaul of the NAND and the controller has taken the WD Black from the bottom of the efficiency chart with last year's model to the very top, where it has a small lead over the Toshiba XG5 and Samsung 960 PRO.


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 burst sequential read performance of the WD Black is several times higher than last year's model, but doesn't come close to setting any records.

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 sustained sequential read test, the Samsung NVMe drives have a clear lead over the WD Black, which is tied with Toshiba's drives.

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

In terms of power efficiency for sequential reads, the WD Black is much closer to the top drives, with the exception of the Samsung 960 PRO.


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)

As with the burst random write test, our two samples show surprising differences in burst sequential write speeds. The difference amounts to the WD Black/SanDisk Extreme PRO either being tied for second place with the Samsung 960 EVO, or almost tied with the PM981 that the 960 EVO's replacement will be based on.

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

The sustained sequential write performance of the WD Black is not quite the best, but it is well ahead of everything except the best drives from Samsung and Intel. The WD Black is almost twice as fast as the Toshiba XG5 that uses essentially the same flash.

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

Despite not having the best performance on the sequential write test, the WD Black is the clear winner on the efficiency metric. With power draw of just over 4W it isn't close to being the least power-hungry drive, but it get so much done on that budget that the efficiency score beats everything else.


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

The WD Black offers great mixed random I/O performance, but it is still slightly slower overall than the best drives from Samsung, and the Optane SSD is in an entirely different league.

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

The WD Black's power efficiency on the mixed random I/O test is about the same as that of the Samsung 960 PRO, and close to the Optane SSD in spite of the vast difference in absolute performance level.


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 mixed sequential workload performance of the WD Black is surprisingly good, just barely behind the Optane SSD and far ahead of almost all flash-based SSDs.

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

The WD Black draws about the same power as other SSDs during the mixed sequential test, and combined with the great performance that translates to a huge lead in power efficiency.


Power Management

Real-world client storage workloads leave SSDs idle most of the time, so the active power measurements presented earlier in this review only account for a small part of what determines a drive's suitability for battery-powered use. Especially under light use, the power efficiency of a SSD is determined mostly be how well it can save power when idle.

SATA SSDs are tested with SATA link power management disabled to measure their active idle power draw, and with it enabled for the deeper idle power consumption score and the idle wake-up latency test. Our testbed, like any ordinary desktop system, cannot trigger the deepest DevSleep idle state.

Idle power management for NVMe SSDs is far more complicated than for SATA SSDs. NVMe SSDs can support several different idle power states, and through the Autonomous Power State Transition (APST) feature the operating system can set a drive's policy for when to drop down to a lower power state. There is typically a tradeoff in that lower-power states take longer to enter and wake up from, so the choice about what power states to use may differ for desktop and notebooks.

We report two idle power measurements. Active idle is representative of a typical desktop, where none of the advanced PCIe link or NVMe power saving features are enabled and the drive is immediately ready to process new commands. The idle power consumption metric is measured with PCIe Active State Power Management L1.2 state enabled and NVMe APST enabled.

Active Idle Power Consumption (No LPM)Idle Power Consumption

Like most NVMe SSDs, the WD Black has a fairly high active idle power draw—the cost of keeping a PCIe 3 x4 link active. The active idle power is a bit higher than the previous WD Black SSD but is in line with drives from Samsung, Toshiba and Phison.

Enabling all the advanced PCIe and NVMe power management features doesn't have the desired effect on the WD Black SSD. The drops by almost half, but it should have dropped by at least an order of magnitude. The original WD Black SSD used aggressive power management whether or not the operating system requested it. The new WD Black seems to be unable to save much power when used on our desktop testbed, no matter what NVMe power states are requested. We will work with Western Digital to try to isolate the cause of this poor behavior. In the meantime, the WD Black is hardly the only NVMe drive where power management has problems out of the box, but Intel and Samsung have managed to produce drives that achieve very low idle power on our testbed with little or no tuning required.

Idle Wake-Up Latency

Since the WD Black is clearly unable to engage its full array of power management capabilities on our testbed, it is unsurprising to see that its wake-up latency is quite short. It is not the minimal ~15µs we usually observe from drives that aren't enabling any power savings at all, but ~230µs is still a very quick wake-up from sleep.


출처 - https://www.anandtech.com




























  1. 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 Views6141
    Read More
  2. 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 Frequency10...
    Date2018.04.21 CategoryCPU Reply0 Views2028
    Read More
  3. 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 Views1181
    Read More
  4. 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 Views1318
    Read More
  5. 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 Views2533
    Read More
  6. 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 Views1102
    Read More
  7. 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 Views1455
    Read More
  8. 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 Views727
    Read More
  9. 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 Views662
    Read More
  10. 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 Views1170
    Read More
  11. 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 Views40091
    Read More
  12. 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 Views1408
    Read More
  13. 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 Views1376
    Read More
  14. 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 Views1493
    Read More
  15. 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 Views3923
    Read More
  16. 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 Views1131
    Read More
  17. 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 Views2730
    Read More
  18. 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 Views3792
    Read More
  19. 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 Views8301
    Read More
  20. 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 Views762
    Read More
  21. 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 Views1735
    Read More
  22. 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 Views1311
    Read More
  23. 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 Views3342
    Read More
  24. 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 Views3975
    Read More
Board Pagination Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23 Next
/ 23