Final Words

The Phison E7 NVMe SSD platform has provided us with a very interesting case study of the effects SSD controller firmware can have on the performance of drives with almost identical hardware. All Phison E7 drives on the market use Toshiba 15nm MLC NAND. The firmware has evolved significantly since the first retail release in the spring of 2016, but it has not produced an across the board improvement in performance.

On our ATSB tests of real-world desktop storage workloads, the NX500's best showing was on the Heavy test, the most write-intensive of the three. Digging deeper, our ATSB tests show the NX500 is generally slower than its siblings for writes, though often fastest of the three for reads. This is not where we expected its strengths to lie, though the benefits of the large spare area do show up in the relatively small performance hit the NX500 suffers when the tests are conducted on a full drive.

The NX500 is at its best with sustained high queue depths. It's reasonable for a drive with this much overprovisioning to take other measures to optimize for heavy workloads, but clearly the NX500 overshot any sensible consumer workload target. Even the heaviest desktop workloads don't reach QD32 very often, and their overall performance is determined primarily by how the drive behaves at low queue depths. At lower queue depths, the NX500 mostly fails to deliver.

Our synthetic tests mostly mirror the ATSB tests in showing lackluster write performance compared to how the NX500 ranks on the read speed tests. The sequential write speed of the NX500 is pretty good in the grand scheme of things, but the other two Phison E7 drives are slightly faster still.

The Corsair Neutron NX500 consistently scores poorly on power efficiency. Since it is a desktop-only drive and only consumes a few Watts at most, this is insignificant. One contributing factor is that the NX500 has twice as much DRAM as is typical for its flash capacity, providing a small but constant extra power draw that apparently doesn't do much for performance.

I suspect the firmware used on the NX500 borrows some more from Phison's enterprise SSD firmware than the Patriot Hellfire's firmware does. The Hellfire's performance clearly suffers greatly when the drive is full, more so than either of the other two Phison E7 drives we've tested, and more than most MLC SSDs. The Patriot Hellfire's ranking tends to be better on our short burst I/O tests at QD1 than on the sustained tests. All of those are common characteristics to see on consumer drives that sacrifice some high-end performance for the sake of better real-world performance. The Corsair Neutron NX500 isn't a clear loser on all of the real-world and low queue depth tests, indicating that it hasn't completely sacrificed consumer performance optimization in the pursuit of higher synthetic benchmark scores.

  250-256GB 400-512GB 800-1024GB 1.6-2TB
Corsair Neutron NX500   $319.99 (80¢/GB) $649.99 (81¢/GB) TBA
Samsung 960 EVO $142.84 (51¢/GB) $234.00 (47¢/GB) $477.99 (46¢/GB)  
Samsung 960 PRO   $299.99 (59¢/GB) $579.99 (57¢/GB) $1129 (55¢/GB)
Intel SSD 600p $165.59 (65¢/GB) $212.99 (42¢/GB) $355.00 (35¢/GB)  
WD Black $109.99 (43¢/GB) $198.98 (39¢/GB)    

While the tradeoffs of different Phison E7 firmwares are interesting, they're not too relevant to the current state of the market. All consumer PCIe SSDs using planar MLC NAND flash are squeezed between cheap TLC drives like the WD Black and Intel 600p, and Samsung's 960 EVO which offers better real-world performance than pretty much everything except the 960 PRO. At the moment, the price spread is a mere $35: from 39¢/GB for the WD Black up to 47¢/GB for the 960 EVO. It's hard to argue that there's any room for a product to carve out a niche somewhere in that small range. Based on performance alone, the Corsair Neutron NX500's MSRP is about twice what its actual retail price ought to be. But even with a massive price cut, the NX500 will need to rely on aesthetics and brand loyalty to sell.

Power Management
Comments Locked

45 Comments

View All Comments

  • shabby - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    According to toms review the 500gb one still does 2gb/s read/write at qd1, nothing touches it.
  • Ratman6161 - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    Yes, according to Tom's and others, the 500 GB 960 EVO is still the drive to have in its size class - which is why I bought one. On the other hand the 256 GB 960 EVO doesn't stand up against the competition like the 500 and up drives do. So, when comparing these drives with an eye to actually purchasing one, its a great idea to find reviews of the actual size you are looking at and comparing against other like sized drives.
  • mapesdhs - Thursday, August 17, 2017 - link

    Trouble with the EVO is when its cache is full it can't take the heavy writes, and its random & steady state performance are not that great. They're good enough (I bought a 250GB for my brother), but the Pro is way better, and the 950 Pro is better aswell.
  • CrazyElf - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    This doesn't justify the premium over SATA SSDs.

    Unlike say, the Samsung SSD 960 series or the Intel SSD 750, which do have something to offer, especially when it comes to sequential performance, these drives really struggle to justify the premium.

    Yeah it seems increasingly like Intel (SSD 750 dominates sustained writes on 4k) and Samsung (dominates most other benchmarks).

    I mean, products like Optane are expensive, but at least they have some premium (ex: the good 4k performance).
  • versesuvius - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    Corsair expects to be paid higher for whatever it puts together no matter what. The same is true with Cooler Master and Logitech. For each single one of their products there is an equivalent product on the market that is higher in quality and performance and considerably lower in price.
  • valinor89 - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    I don't know about Cooler Master, but logitech sells plenty of cheap stuff and some products have very good prices for what they offer. The G502 was quite the revolution in perf/price and I find my G610 to have very good quality compared to Corsais Oferings.
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    With PCIe lane counts coming up, I hope to see Samsung and Intel start using them

    With a full 16 lanes being used, benchmarking can finally change along with the SSD processors/firmware

    Intel may take the lead with xpoint initially, but with the ability to run several simultaneous tests on an SSD max iop / mixed mode, copy/paste, 100GB uncompressed read speed, 100GB uncompressed write as well as torture tests as the onboard processors finally catch up to the lane counts, I think Samsung may yet have a few surprises for xpoint

    4 lanes ain't gonna cut it for my 16 core cpu

    Get with the times!
  • Ratman6161 - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    No matter how many PCIe lanes your ThreadRipper CPU has available (assume that's what you are talking about since you say 16 core) the spec for NVMe is still x4
  • Billy Tallis - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    NVMe has nothing to say about PCIe lane counts. You're probably thinking about the M.2 connector, but that is hardly the only way to connect a PCIe SSD.
  • hlm - Wednesday, August 16, 2017 - link

    Yes, it is when NVMe is used through U.2 and M.2 that you get four-lane PCIe. When used through SATA Express, NVMe is stuck with two-lane PCIe.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now