Corsair Force MP600 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD Benchmarks On Linux

[coder]

There's lots of 4K and more here: https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...HV-CORSAIRFO44

Where are the rest of the drives in your article? Those benchmarks don't do me a lot of good, in isolation.

[Michael]

It's almost as if this benchmark was rigged to show the drive in a good light. The Flexible I/O Tester & FS-Mark use 2 MB and 1 MB sizes, which are mostly throughput-limited. Why no random 4 kB tests to show its raw IOPS potential?

I can't say much about the DB benchmarks, since it's not obvious how big the records are or how much coherency exists in the access patterns.

There's lots of 4K and more here: https://openbenchmarking.org/result/...HV-CORSAIRFO44

As for the DB tests, all the tests are open and transparent via OpenBenchmarking.org.

[coder]

I wonder if Optane is bottlenecked by PCIe3 and would see a similar perf improvement using PCIe4

No, the 900P has a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface, which is nominally capable of up to 4 GB/sec. The 900P is bottlenecked by its controller - not the interface. In the 905P, Intel replaced the controller with one of their own design.

[coder]

I'm sorry to say that I wouldn't trust much those results.
tbh I don't trust them at all since the results are pretty much incoherent.

The Samsung 970 pro shouldn't be slower in any test compared to the Samsung 860.

It's just a guess, but I wonder if the benchmark is doing a fsync between files. In that case, the bottleneck could be the NAND, more than the interface.

You're right that it's weird result, and worth understanding, but doesn't necessarily invalidate the tests.

[coder]

Yeah that's a known performance deficit for windows but it doesn't explain why the nvme on pci-e 4.0 would suck more on win compared to linux... that's what's troubling me.

Try comparing similar benchmarks on both systems. I'm guessing the Windows benchmarks you saw were much more skewed towards random performance and IOPS-intensive workloads.

[coder]

Phoronix: Corsair Force MP600 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD Benchmarks On Linux

It's almost as if this benchmark was rigged to show the drive in a good light. The Flexible I/O Tester & FS-Mark use 2 MB and 1 MB sizes, which are mostly throughput-limited. Why no random 4 kB tests to show its raw IOPS potential?

I can't say much about the DB benchmarks, since it's not obvious how big the records are or how much coherency exists in the access patterns.

[_Alex_]

Many benchmarks, I mean the various sub-benchmarks that comprise the review.

[Luke_Wolf]

Interesting. Windows benchmarks showed nothing serious improvement-wise for this SSD... in many benchmarks it was lagging the old mp510...

Linux seems to perform faaar better.

And a correction: "The MP600 2TB costs around $450 USD while the Optane 900p 280GB costs $250 USD, but there is also the nearly four times greater storage capacity with the Corsair SSD." ....should write ~7 times greater storage.

"In many benchmarks"

You mean in the one singular review by guru3d that everyone is writing about? Sorry but the MP510 beating the MP600 is enough to call guru3d's review into question and I'm not going to trust those results until they're validated by other reviewers. Although more than anything I'm waiting on Anandtech's review of it because if there is a performance deficit (which there shouldn't be) they'll actually end up highlighting where the factor actually lies rather than just running a bunch of random benchmarks.

[tedder]

The MP600 2TB costs around $450 USD while the Optane 900p 280GB costs $250 USD, but there is also the nearly four times greater storage capacity with the Corsair SSD.

Something's wrong with this math. Either compare the 1TB at $250 and 4x capacity, or the 2TB at $450 and 8x capacity.

[Alliancemd]

The benchmarks seem a bit biased towards workflows where NAND works best and where this drive will actually do best.
Who cares about Sequential Writes of huge files?

Show us how it performs on small 4KB-64KB file READS - actual relevant data to users(the OS and software mostly interacts with small files).

Looks like Phoronix attempted to show this drive in a good light(don't get me wrong, it's good, but Phoronix showed only benchmarks where it would do best).