The SanDisk X400 1TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on May 6, 2016 9:00 AM ESTRandom Read Performance
The random read test requests 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 spans the entire drive, which is filled before the test starts. 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.
The X400's random read performance is almost as good as the Samsung 850 EVO and much better than the other planar TLC drives. This is a significant accomplishment, as random reads are often the slowest operation for TLC drives and hard to improve with caching.
The X400's mid-range random read performance is achieved with relatively low power consumption, making it surprisingly efficient for a TLC drive.
 |
|||||||||
At the highest queue depths the X400 can't quite reach the limits of the fastest drives, but overall the scaling of both performance and power usage are reasonable for a mid-range SATA drive.
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.
The X400's low queue depth random write speeds fall in the middle of the gap between the slowest MLC drive and the rest of the planar TLC drives.
The X400's power consumption is low, but with performance well behind any MLC drive the efficiency is only better than the other planar TLC drives.
 |
|||||||||
The SanDisk X400's random write speeds show almost no scaling with increased queue depths, behavior that is typical of low-end TLC drives. The QD1 performance is as good as any SATA drive and while the OCZ Trion 150 hits great speeds at QD16 and QD32, the SanDisk X400 is clearly faster for the more realistic lower queue depths.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Chaitanya - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
1TB capacity in M.2 Form factor is tempting.nathanddrews - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
I like the $/GB, but there aren't enough GBs.Namisecond - Sunday, May 8, 2016 - link
Maybe you need to stop treating SSDs as bulk storage?dsumanik - Sunday, May 8, 2016 - link
Maybe you should go back to floppies.It's 2016 and there is no reason for magnetic drives to be alive. Yes yes, I know about cost per gig and all the stats you feel like googling and quoting to me to prove how smart you are, but the real truth is this: it's way more profitable to sell us 50 year old technology cuz dums dums will keep on buying.
Bring on xpoint, it'll help push traditional flash down into the bargain bin... And for u sir, Ii will gladly mail you my original dos 6.22 install disks if you simply shut the f**k up.
santeana - Monday, May 9, 2016 - link
LMAO! I wish there was a like button!+1
blakeatwork - Monday, May 9, 2016 - link
It's a process of how quickly do you need to access certain types of data. OS, programs and games all benefit from being on an SSD (assuming supporting architecture does not have any obvious bottlenecks). I'm not sure browsing photos from a recent vacation really provides the necessary strain on your I/O that requires an SSD :DMagnetic drives will stick around for quite a while, especially for Home/SMB NAS devices where the amount of storage is greater then the perceived need for super fast access, which is throttled by GbE network (or WiFi) anyways
bug77 - Tuesday, May 10, 2016 - link
Modern operating system do lots of stuff in the background, an AV may scan your drives from time to time. This is stuff that kills IO on a HDD and that barely registers on a SSD. So there are reason for moving away from HDDs... But yes, the HDD will stick around for a while, simply because of pricing.jordanclock - Saturday, July 2, 2016 - link
Good thing we just dump all old technology as soon as we find a replacement!edward1987 - Thursday, September 22, 2016 - link
1TB is quite out of my pocket £218 (http://www.span.com/product/SanDisk-X400-SSD-SD8SN... but 512GB I would not mind. If you have Qnap tvs-1282 server or similar - they have m.2 for caching or tiered storage. I can use for it in there.HollyDOL - Friday, May 6, 2016 - link
There is a mismatch in Specification table:1TiB (1024GB) should be 1TB(1000GB)
According to specs at https://www.sandisk.com/content/dam/sandisk-main/e...
putting 10^3n and 2^10n prefixes together is just incorrect anyway without correct recalculation...