SPECworkstation 3.0.2 Storage Benchmark
SPECworkstation benchmark is an excellent benchmark to test systems using workstation-type workloads. In this test, we only ran the Storage component, which is fifteen separate tests.
Between the Samsung 9100 PRO and the T710, I may have to rescale SPECworkstation’s results. Both of these drives push SPECworkstation to incredible results, though the T710 does lose slightly compared to the 9100 PRO. The T705 is a distant competitor compared to the new T710. These new Gen5 drives are firmly in Optane territory with these SPEC results.
Sustained Write Performance
This is not necessarily a benchmark so much as trying to catch the post-cache write speed of the drive. While I am filling the drive with data to the 85% mark with ten simultaneous write threads, I monitor the drive for the write performance to dip to the lowest steady point and grab a screenshot.
One area the Samsung 9100 PRO was not chart-topping was in this sustained write test, and the T710 does not suffer that fault. Really the T710, T705, and FireCuda 540 should all be considered ‘off the chart’ as my ability to generate sustained data for writing in this test caps somewhere around 3 GB/s.
Temperatures
We monitored the idle and maximum temperature during testing with HWMonitor to get some idea of the thermal performance and requirements of the drive.
While the T710 claims some power and efficiency advantages against previous drives, the T710 can still pump out some heat when under heavy load. This drive does not reach these high temperatures easily, only a sustained workload caused them, but it is possible. If you are going to push the T710 to its limits, I recommend a heatsink and some airflow.
Generational Comparison
Crucial made some comparisons to the T710 and T705, so I thought I would stack the two up directly.
Generally speaking, the T710 does come out on top of the T705 in almost every test. The lone holdouts are in sequential read performance in CrystalDiskMark, but Crucial did not actually make any comparisons to the T705 in that metric, so perhaps this is why. Write performance consistency was dramatically improved compared to the T705, and that is something Crucial claimed.
Now then, if you already own a T705 should you upgrade? Probably not, as the T705 is still plenty quick. But if you are choosing between the two, the T710 is definitely faster.
Final Words
The Crucial T710 2TB is launching with a MSRP of $280 without a heatsink and $300 with one. This pricing is fairly high, but that is to be expected given the performance on offer. The biggest competition the T710 is going to face is from Samsung’s 9100 PRO, which as of writing is available discounted to $240 for the 2TB SKU, which is a big price difference for a very competitive drive. The T705 is available for $225, but represents a larger performance gap. Either way, $280 is a premium price for a premium product.
Crucial has long had competent offerings for Gen5 drives. I was impressed by both the T700 and T705. The T710 continues that trend and is the fastest Crucial drive I had tested. If the Samsung 9100 PRO did not exist, the T710 would be my undisputed Gen5 king, but since it does I consider the two drives to be peers atop the Gen5 mountain. If you are building a new system and want the absolute very best, the Crucial T710 deserves your consideration.
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…
While we’re speaking of comparison charts, I miss a small random read comparison or two between drives.
Its possible that I’m working from outdated assumptions but I had the impression that 4KQD1 random reads was still the biggest impact on perceived performance.