Crucial T710 2TB Performance Testing
We test using both the default smaller test size and larger test sets on our benchmarks. This allows us to see the difference between lighter and heavier workloads.
CrystalDiskMark x64
CrystalDiskMark is used as a basic starting point for benchmarks as it is something commonly run by end-users as a sanity check.
The Crucial T710 2TB promised 14500 MB/s read and 13800 MB/s write, but I did not quite get there in my testing. Both read and write performance were slightly below rated, and perhaps importantly were below both the T705 and the 9100 PRO. Performance is still great, but just not as great as claimed.
The larger CrystalDiskMark test has the T710 turn in strong numbers, particularly on writes, while still falling slightly short of the very lofty rated specs. Write speed against the T705 is significantly improved here, which is great to see, and read speeds are within striking distance.
ATTO Disk Benchmark
The ATTO Disk Benchmark has been a staple of drive sequential performance testing for years. ATTO was tested at both 256MB and 8GB file sizes.
The Crucial T710 is perhaps the first drive I have seen where ATTO sequential results are better than CrystalDiskMark. The T710 does spectacularly well here. Read results are as high as I have ever seen, and write results are very close to the top as well. Just as important, though, is the overall consistency of performance on this test, which is something the T705 struggled with.
The larger ATTO test changes nothing, and the T710 is still firmly atop my chart. Performance hardly changes from the smaller test, and there is zero inconsistency in the results across the span of the test.
Anvil’s Storage Utilities
Anvil’s Storage Utilities is a comprehensive benchmark that gives us a very in-depth look at the performance of the drives tested. This benchmark was run with both a 1GB and 8GB test size.
The T710 is awesome in this Anvil test. Read results are almost tied to the Samsung 9100 PRO, and the T710 wins outright in write score. Compared to the previous T705, itself a very fast drive, the T710 turns in a leap in performance on both metrics.
In the larger Anvil, the T710 loses a step compared to the Samsung 9100 PRO, but otherwise holds well. The T705 did better on the larger Anvil test and that allows it to somewhat catch up to its newer sibling, but the overall edge still goes to the T710.
AS SSD Benchmark
AS SSD Benchmark is another good benchmark for testing SSDs. We run all three tests for our series. Like other utilities, it was run with both the default 1GB as well as a larger 10GB test set.
AS SSD shows puts the T710 atop the chart again, with blazingly fast read and write scores. The T705 did well here in writes, but the T710 is in its own class for reads.
The larger AS SSD test shows the T710 give some ground in read performance, but holds strong for writes. Overall the T710 is the fastest drive I have tested in AS SSD.
SPECworkstation, thermals, and our conclusion are up next.
My God, You’re Greasy.
> Crucial is claiming 42% higher random writes, 28% higher random reads, and 9% higher sequential write performance compared to the T705. They are also claiming a 24% reduction in average power use. When we get to testing we will see how the two stack up.
Unfortunately no power consumption figures to be found in this review, so no idea if the claim of 24% reduction v T705 is accurate.
Yeah is there a way to get power consumption figures? That would be super helpful!
@George, according to other reviews that test drives more thoroughly the power consumption is about the same as the Samsung 9100 drive except for idle where this drive is much better (0.031W idle, 7.848W large reads, 2.861W small reads).
Just a note here that this drive seems to only hit the same max temps as the Samsung 9100 does, and this drive doesn’t have a heatsink, the reviewed variant of the Samsung does.
It would be very worthwhile to start including power comparison charts, rather than just standalone single value charts for each drive going forward.
Could we move away from these small drives now… and get cheaper 8-16TB ones already… if it read writes 7000 or 8000 MB/s doesn’t really matter anymore when the capacity have stagnated for ages…