AMD Radeon R7 SSD in the test

While AMD can already come up with CPUs, graphics cards and RAM in the field of PC components, a permanent memory component was still missing. And since the Radeon brand focuses on performance, AMD did not get a hard drive manufacturer on board, but an SSD manufacturer. This resulted in the AMD Radeon R7 SSD series, which then has a few surprises in its luggage, as our test shows.

Intro

Like the Radeon main memory products, AMD does not manufacture the Radeon R7 SSD series itself. Entering the crowded consumer SSD market would simply be too expensive and risky. Instead, AMD has entered into a cooperation with OCZ. This is not hidden behind OEM abbreviations, but is printed in large letters on the back of the Radeon R7 drive. AMD didn't just buy an OCZ product and relabel it. Instead, the Radeon R7 is different from the OCZ ARC 100 and Vector 150 on some points.

Only the basic recipe is the same: a controller from OCZ (for which the controller specialist Indilinx was taken over some time ago) and NAND flash from the new OCZ parent company Toshiba. There is also the OCZ guarantee ShieldPlus. The ARC 100 is positioned as a device for beginners, the Radeon R7 is intended to make gaming computers steam, and the Vector 150 is intended for absolute enthusiasts.

We will probably not find out why marketing has given the product a name with "R7", which has already been used for another Radeon product - a series of graphics cards. But we shall see how the performance of this R7 SSD can be classified and how it holds up against its competitors.

SSD bookmarks:

Recent SSD Reviews:

The test candidate

Key data and technology

When studying the technical data, one immediately notices the technical relationship between the Radeon R7 SSD and the ARC 100. While the Flash NAND used is the same, a higher clocked version of the Barefoot 7 controller is used in the Radeon R3. In addition, the 480 GB version has more DRAM.

manufacturer's instructions OCZ ARC 100 OCZ AMD Radeon R7
capacities 120 / 240 / 480 GB 120 / 240 / 480 GB
controller Barefoot 3 M10 (352 MHz) Barefoot 3 M00 (397 MHz)
Interface Serial ATA 6.0 Gbps Serial ATA 6.0 Gbps
Flash Toshiba A19nm 64 Gbit MLC Toshiba A19nm 64 Gbit MLC
DRAM cache 512 MB 512 MB (120 and 240 GB), 1 GB (480 GB)
form factor 2,5 inch 2,5 inch
Max. Read 475 MB / s (120 GB), 480 MB / s (24 0GB), 490 MB / s (480 GB) 550 MB / s (120 - 480 GB)
Max. Write 395 MB / s (120 GB), 430 MB / s (240 GB), 450 MB / s (480 GB) 470 MB / s (120 GB), 530 MB / s (240 GB), 530 MB / s (480 GB)
Max. Read IOPS 75.000 85k (120 GB), 95k (240 GB), 100k (480 GB)
Max. IOPS writing 80.000 90k (120 - 480 GB)
Manufacturer warranty 3 years ShieldPlus 4 years ShieldPlus

While the ARC 100 was somewhat more restricted when processing sequential data, either structurally or via firmware, OCZ promises significantly higher read and write rates for the performance model.

Equipment

The SSD encrypts data with 256-bit AES, but unfortunately does not support the TCG Opal specifications, which are necessary for the use of Microsoft's eDrive standard, for example. Unfortunately, there is also no support for the additional energy-saving modes such as DevSleep and HIPM + DIPM. When you pick up the drive, you notice that, at 115 grams, it feels heavier compared to competing models (e.g. Samsung's 850 Evo at 66 grams). Both factors don't make it an ideal drive for notebooks, but since it's a performance model, these two points are less important here. In a gamer PC (Radeon target group!) Or a workstation, the weight and 1 watt difference in idle are negligible.

lifespan

Now let's take a look at durability. OCZ promises the customer an average write volume of 30 GB per day over four years "with typical end-user loads". The manufacturer explicitly mentions workstations as an area of ​​application. The bottom line is that you get a guaranteed write volume of just under 44 terabytes.

When testing the ARC-100 drives, we referred to the endurance test on the Kitguru.net website, which received five ARC-100 drives. When you write these lines, all five drives already have the 300 terabyte mark exceeded. Since the Radeon R7 and the ARC 100 use the same flash and the controller of the R7 is “only” clocked higher, one can - at least very carefully - assume that the Radeon R7 can also handle a multiple of the promised write volume on average. But it is not uncommon for SSDs to achieve a multiple of their promised write volumes in endurance tests.

Impressions

Apart from the key for the Acronis software (see software features), the SSD also comes with a 3,5 ″ mounting frame.

 

Image: AMD Radeon R7 SSD in the test

 

In the 256 GB version, the NAND flash memory was divided into 16 packages, 8 each on the front and rear. As a result, there are more dies in the individual packages in the 480 GB variant.

The ShieldPlus guarantee

For the newer models, OCZ offers the ShieldPlus guarantee. This applies to the ARC 100 and Vertex 460A for three years each, and four years for the AMD Radeon R7 SSD. In practice, the procedure works like this: If you have a problem with the SSD, contact support. The serial number of the model is sufficient as legitimation, no proof of purchase is required. If the support determines that there is obviously a defect, a new SSD will be sent directly to the customer, together with a return slip for the free return of the old SSD.

Software equipment

Together with the Radeon R7, the customer receives Acronis True Image HD in a bundle. This image program should support the migration of partitions to the SSD. The OCZ Toolbox is also included again, a tool for updating firmware and checking the SSD properties. A YouTube video illustrates this process. The OCZ Toolbox can be used for Microsoft Windows 7 and 8 (.1), Linux and Mac OS downloaded become. Acronis True Image HD is available for Windows versions from XP to 8.

If you want, you can use other means to ensure that the operating environment is optimally matched to the SSD drives. Important parameters are:

  • Does the SATA port run in AHCI mode?
  • Does the operating system support TRIM?
  • Has any automatic defragmentation of the operating system been deactivated?

Test environment

Hardware

Test station:

The test candidate:

Comparison models:

Software

Our benchmark course

Our benchmark course aims to answer the following questions:

  • How fast is the SSD reading and writing large files sequentially and reading and writing small files at random?
  • How do fragmented blocks (not to be confused with file fragmentation!) And the resulting read-modify writes affect performance after a heavy write load?
  • How fast is the SSD in a continuous load scenario (steady state)?
  • Can TRIM restore full performance?
  • How effective is garbage collection?
  • How fast is the SSD when certain mixes of large and small blocks occur?

Synthetic benchmarks

The use of synthetic benchmarks cannot be avoided, since only with these the technical limits of the SSDs become visible. They show the maximum achievable.

Benchmark Usage
Iometer (sequential read / write) Maximum read and write rate for large blocks; is only achieved in practice when reading / writing with large files, e.g. when editing video.
Iometer (random read / write) Maximum read and write rate for parallel access to small 4k blocks. These occur most frequently in practice in daily work.
AS SSD We use this widely used benchmark for the sake of completeness.

With these benchmarks we determine the performance in the following states:

Condition Description
fresh All pages in the SSD are empty and have not yet been written to. This is the status upon delivery or after a Secure Erase.
Used All blocks have already been written to at least once. (Only for writing tests)
after heavy load Performance according to a reproduced load scenario through our Iometer server load profiles.
according to TRIM Performance after the blocks have been released by TRIM.

In this way it can be seen whether and to what extent the performance of the SSD is falling and whether TRIM can restore the original performance.

It doesn't matter whether you copy a few hundred MP3 or video files or simulate this work with Iometer, the effort is the same for the SSD. Differences resulting from the file system of the operating system then affect all SSDs equally, so that the ratios of the performance differences remain the same.

Trace benchmarks

Real life, on the other hand, can be simulated using trace benchmarks such as PCMark or Iometer profiles, which simulate use cases. With these tests, practical accesses are carried out in a reproducible manner.

Benchmark Usage
PCMark7 trace benchmarks PCMark7 simulates various use cases that are primarily aimed at private multimedia.
Iometer workstation profile This profile simulates a heavily used workstation with 8K access. Two thirds of the accesses are read accesses, one third are write accesses. Two thirds of the accesses are random and one third sequential.
Iometer web server profile Mainly data of various block sizes is downloaded from a web server. This profile reproduces such work.
Iometer file server profile This profile simulates the work of a file server from which files of various sizes are downloaded and uploaded. A fifth of the accesses are write accesses.
Iometer c't IOMix This profile was created by the trade journal c't. It reproduces the work on a normal PC and was originally created for hard drive tests.

For practical results, we carry out these tests after the SSD has already been written with load profiles several times and is occupied with active data except for a remaining 10 GB. This gives you the performance values ​​of an SSD that has already been used and is currently mostly full.

Applications

We test less per application itself. There are two main reasons for this: First, the CPU limit falsifies the performance gap between the SSDs. For example, when the SSD has to wait for the CPU to process certain data before the SSD can continue working when the application starts. Due to the CPU limit, the SSDs move closer together than would be the case with faster CPUs later. Second, many applications can only be measured with a stopwatch, which is too imprecise for us, especially since the results are sometimes only tenths of a second apart. However, we carry out our long-serving OpenOffice copy test because it is easy to reproduce. We have only increased the amount of data there by a factor of 12. It is now 3,06 GB of data in over 48.000 files of various sizes that will be duplicated on the test drive.

Continuous load measurements

As described in the section “Load behavior”, SSDs collapse under a continuous random write load if the garbage collection cannot provide free blocks quickly enough. Such a load behavior occurs only rarely in normal home use. For one or the other reader, however, it might be interesting whether an SSD is also suitable for somewhat tougher use. For example, as a data carrier for a virtualizer, where a lot of small accesses can occur in parallel, or as a disk for a database test environment.

For this test, we let go of as many 4k write accesses as possible to the SSD using the Iometer and create a graph that shows the performance over time. We repeat this test after a 30-minute or 12-hour break to see whether the garbage collection was able to provide enough free blocks for high performance during this time. Since Iometer works with a large test file, which is never deleted, but only overwritten, the influence of TRIM in these two repetitions is excluded. The increase in performance through TRIM itself is then measured in a fourth run. This takes place after a quick format, whereby the drive is "trimmed". The test file is then created again.

We would like to point out that this goes well beyond the normal requirements for SSDs for home use. If an SSD does not do so well here, it is therefore not counted negatively. But we want to find out which SSDs stand out positively from the crowd. In addition, this test makes it easier to see to what extent the garbage collection is working.

MByte / s or IOPS?

Usually we give the measurement results in megabytes per second. In the profile tests, however, we give the results in IOPS (Input / Output Operations per Second = input and output commands per second). An input or output command can mean reading or writing a block. This does not affect the comparability. If a data carrier manages 128 IO per second in a write test with 1.000 KB blocks, then mathematically this results in 1.000 * 128 KB = 128 MB per second. When an operating system writes MP3 files or videos, it does so in blocks, too, and the block sizes ultimately depend on the size of the files and the formatting of the file system. With many small files, this may limit the number of IOPS and with large files the maximum write rate of the SSD. Therefore, it makes sense to use the specification of IOPS wherever a high number of read and write operations take place and / or different block sizes are involved.

In the case of continuous load measurements, the indication in IOPS has the additional advantage that the maximum IOPS information usually advertised by the manufacturers can be compared directly with the real results.

Measurement results

Sequential reading

These two tests determine how quickly large files can be read. While Iometer continuously reads data from the test address range (= size of the SSD minus 10 GB), AS SSD uses test files that are "only" 1 GB in size. We measure sequential read performance while the SSD is in the following states:

Condition Description
fresh All pages in the SSD were blank before the test and had not yet been written to. This is the status upon delivery or after a Secure Erase.
according to load Performance according to a reproduced load scenario through our Iometer server load profiles. This load is higher than with typical home use.
Notice: Between the execution of the server load profile and this test, the SSD was given half an hour of idle time for regeneration via garbage collection, as between all other tests.
according to TRIM Performance after the blocks have been released by TRIM.
Iometer - sequential reading
[seq. Read (fresh)]
[seq. Read (after load)]
[seq. Read (after TRIM)]
Corsair Force LX 256GB

554,4

485,5

552,5
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

552,9

530,4

552,4
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

547,3

546,4

548,9
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

542,7

542,4

542,8
Samsung 840 120GB

541,9

486,3

534,8
Crucial m550 256 GB

537,1

517,5

536,6
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

536,7

460,4

536,1
Crucial MX100 256 GB

534,2

490,4

534,3
Crucial m550 1TB

533,3

536,5

533,8
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

503,6

422,3

503,9
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

498,4

479,8

498,9
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

490,4

425,9

492,3
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

459,2

389,7

456,3
MByte / s

The Radeon R7 is not one of the strongest SSDs in reading either. The 550MB / s announced in the data sheets were based on the Atto benchmark. Iometer and AS SSD deliver noticeably lower values. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that the measurable difference of 3% to the top of the field at Iometer is so small that it cannot be felt in practice. The difference with AS SSD is 10%. This is a bit clearer, but ultimately only means a difference between 1 and 1,9 seconds for the 2 GB test files from AS SSD.

AS-SSD - sequential reading
[seq. Read (fresh)]
[seq. Read (after load)]
[seq. Read (after TRIM)]
Corsair Force LX 256GB

527,7

526,7

527,1
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

522,8

521,0

520,0
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

522,6

522,4

522,2
Crucial m550 256 GB

521,5

520,1

520,4
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

520,5

501,2

493,7
Crucial MX100 256 GB

519,9

519,4

518,8
Crucial m550 1TB

518,7

515,6

516,2
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

515,6

513,6

515,4
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

515,5

509,2

516,3
Samsung 840 120GB

515,2

513,4

516,1
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

512,1

510,0

511,8
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

505,1

503,6

504,6
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

449,5

443,1

447,9
MByte / s

Sequential writing

These two tests determine how quickly large files can be written. While Iometer continuously writes data to the test address area (= size of the SSD minus 10 GB), AS SSD uses test files that are "only" 1 GB in size. We measure the sequential write performance while the SSD is in different states:

Condition Description
fresh All pages in the SSD are empty and have not yet been written to. This is the status upon delivery or after a Secure Erase.
Used All blocks have already been written to at least once.
according to load Performance according to a reproduced load scenario through our Iometer server load profiles. This load is higher than with typical home use.
Notice: Between the execution of the server load profiles and this test, the SSD was given half an hour of idle time for regeneration via garbage collection, as between all other tests. Since the results sometimes fluctuate very strongly with AS SSD, we specify the corridor between the minimum and maximum value there.
according to TRIM Performance after the blocks have been released by TRIM.
Iometer - sequential writing
[seq. Write (fresh)]
[seq. Write (used)]
[seq. Write (after load)]
[seq. Write (after TRIM)]
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

526,7

528,6

28,0

487,8
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

515,2

517,4

126,4

514,9
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

503,9

502,6

210,1

504,2
Crucial m550 1TB

503,9

501,0

421,6

499,1
Crucial m550 256 GB

498,2

497,8

138,6

499,6
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

497,5

495,4

297,3

498,2
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

484,7

482,5

39,0

483,5
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

427,8

428,0

220,6

429,5
Crucial MX100 256 GB

342,7

342,4

49,0

342,9
Corsair Force LX 256GB

298,9

298,8

125,9

298,9
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

289,0

289,7

39,3

290,3
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

240,7

252,8

13,7

252,1
Samsung 840 120GB

133,4

133,4

27,7

133,1
MByte / s

The sequential write performance clearly shows that the R7 combines high write performance with a low performance loss under load. The two OCZ SSDs have by far the lowest performance drop in the area of ​​the 240/256 GB SSDs. In the AS SSD benchmark with its very short sequential write spurts, the EVO competitor with its TurboWrite mechanism can still outperform, but otherwise the distribution remains more or less the same.

AS-SSD - sequential writing
[seq. Write (fresh)]
[seq. Write (used)]
[seq. Write (after Last_Minimalwert)]
[seq. Write (after Last_Maximalwert)]
[seq. Write (after TRIM)]
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

503,5

502,7

501,0

501,9

503,2
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

503,0

443,3

39,7

445,9

487,7
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

501,8

500,2

498,3

499,4

501,8
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

491,1

489,2

289,7

444,0

488,0
Crucial m550 1TB

486,3

485,2

483,1

484,2

485,8
Crucial m550 256 GB

483,6

482,6

481,2

482,5

483,1
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

481,1

480,6

398,6

457,7

463,9
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

458,5

459,4

94,7

273,0

453,5
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

413,7

435,9

434,9

435,4

414,4
Crucial MX100 256 GB

332,8

331,7

331,7

335,2

331,5
Corsair Force LX 256GB

286,9

286,3

286,3

287,2

287,1
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

275,4

207,1

115,2

141,0

204,3
Samsung 840 120GB

128,5

128,5

127,3

128,1

128,0
MByte / s

Random reading

These two tests determine how quickly 4 kilobyte blocks can be read. When comparing the values ​​between Iometer and AS SSD, it should be noted that Iometer works with a queue depth of 4. We measure the read performance in the case of random access while the SSD is in different states:

Condition Description
fresh All pages in the SSD are empty and have not yet been written to. This is the status upon delivery or after a Secure Erase.
according to load Performance according to a reproduced load scenario through our Iometer server load profiles. This load is higher than with typical home use.
Notice: Between the execution of the server load profile and this test, the SSD was given half an hour of idle time for regeneration via garbage collection, as between all other tests.
according to TRIM Performance after the blocks have been released by TRIM.
Iometer - random reading
[4K Read (fresh)]
[4K Read (after load)]
[4K Read (according to TRIM)]
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

129,9

115,2

129,5
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

129,6

129,8

129,5
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

125,2

56,3

125,4
Crucial m550 256 GB

120,3

120,2

119,6
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

117,5

118,0

117,8
Crucial MX100 256 GB

117,3

116,8

117,3
Crucial m550 1TB

115,7

116,3

115,9
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

113,2

112,7

113,2
Samsung 840 120GB

106,7

106,6

106,7
Corsair Force LX 256GB

95,5

95,7

96,1
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

88,8

88,6

88,0
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

76,6

77,0

77,3
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

46,0

55,4

53,1
MByte / s

The measured values ​​for the random 4k reading clearly show that the Barefoot 3 controller cannot really distinguish itself here. Both Iometer and AS SSD are behind the competition. In practice, that doesn't look that bad. As we will see in the later, read-intensive web server benchmark, the Radeon R7 is among the front runners. Apparently, many manufacturers optimize their firmware for 4k access and then weaken with other block sizes.

AS-SSD - random reading
[4K Read (fresh)]
[4K Read (after load)]
[4K Read (according to TRIM)]
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

38,1

36,9

37,9
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

34,0

33,7

33,8
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

33,3

33,0

33,3
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

32,9

32,8

32,6
Crucial m550 256 GB

30,5

30,7

30,6
Crucial MX100 256 GB

29,8

29,7

29,7
Crucial m550 1TB

29,6

29,5

29,4
Corsair Force LX 256GB

28,7

28,5

28,5
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

28,4

28,1

28,3
Samsung 840 120GB

28,1

28,1

28,2
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

26,8

30,3

26,7
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

26,3

29,6

25,8
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

21,3

23,6

22,2
MByte / s

Random writing

These two tests determine how fast 4 kilobyte blocks can be written. When comparing the values ​​between Iometer and AS SSD, it should be noted that Iometer works with a queue depth of 4. Measurements with a higher queue depth are carried out in the continuous load measurements. We measure the write performance for random accesses while the SSD is in different states:

Condition Description
fresh All pages in the SSD are empty and have not yet been written to. This is the status upon delivery or after a Secure Erase.
Used All blocks have already been written to at least once.
according to load Performance according to a reproduced load scenario through our Iometer server load profiles. This load is higher than with typical home use.
Notice: Between the execution of the server load profiles and this test, the SSD was given half an hour of idle time for regeneration via garbage collection, as between all other tests. Since the results fluctuate very strongly with AS SSD, we specify the corridor between the minimum and maximum values ​​there.
according to TRIM Performance after the blocks have been released by TRIM.
Iometer - random writing
[4K Write (fresh)]
[4K Write (used)]
[4K Write (after load)]
[4K Write (after TRIM)]
Crucial m550 1TB

264,2

260,1

131,5

261,0
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

259,5

259,7

208,7

257,8
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

259,3

252,8

224,3

249,6
Crucial m550 256 GB

258,8

258,1

82,5

241,0
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

250,0

253,8

29,0

254,7
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

242,8

245,9

51,4

244,3
Crucial MX100 256 GB

242,0

263,0

45,3

237,5
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

232,7

229,2

187,9

228,4
Corsair Force LX 256GB

225,8

225,1

62,9

221,0
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

220,9

220,3

40,6

203,0
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

191,5

188,9

33,7

180,4
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

163,3

115,0

12,8

115,7
Samsung 840 120GB

132,9

133,5

27,0

127,6
MByte / s

Very good results can be seen with random 4k writing, whereby the comparatively small drop under load can be seen. The other test subjects in the front field are all equipped with significantly more flash, which is advantageous due to the larger spare areas. The Radeon R7 is right in front in the closely spaced field in the short write bursts from AS SSD.

AS-SSD - random writing
[4K Write (fresh)]
[4K Write (used)]
[4K Write (after Last_Minimalwert)]
[4K Write (after Last_Maximalwert)]
[4K Write (after TRIM)]
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

102,0

98,4

90,2

101,9

94,5
Crucial m550 1TB

100,6

100,9

97,6

100,4

98,8
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

100,0

96,6

87,4

97,1

95,5
Crucial MX100 256 GB

99,6

99,0

63,9

86,9

97,3
Crucial m550 256 GB

97,8

100,6

97,2

100,4

98,0
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

97,0

97,4

55,0

83,6

96,0
Corsair Force LX 256GB

95,3

95,3

81,4

95,9

92,3
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

95,2

95,2

58,6

88,1

94,6
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

94,5

92,2

53,6

82,0

92,8
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

91,7

92,1

85,4

89,7

88,5
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

90,4

90,8

44,6

74,8

88,4
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

88,0

88,9

63,4

88,1

85,8
Samsung 840 120GB

87,1

86,8

52,9

80,7

86,0
MByte / s

Web server, file server, workstation

These profiles simulate simultaneous read and write access as they occur in typical server or workstation applications. We measure the performance as practically as possible when only 10 GB are free on the SSD and all blocks have already been written to at least once by a previous load that was reproducibly identical for all test subjects.

Profile Description
webserver Blocks of various sizes are read from the SSD. This profile also allows good conclusions to be drawn about game partitions, from which usually only the files of the games are loaded into the RAM.
File server This profile simulates the work of a file server from which files of various sizes are downloaded or uploaded. A fifth of the accesses are write accesses.
Workstation This profile simulates a heavily used workstation with 8K access. Two thirds of the accesses are read accesses, one third are write accesses. Two thirds of the accesses are random and one third sequential.

These profiles represent a load of several minutes. Drives that carry out a garbage collection during idle times benefit from a higher level of performance at the beginning of the measurement.

[Iometer]
[Web server]
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

31500,0
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

30744,1
Samsung 840 120GB

29824,1
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

28973,9
Crucial m550 1TB

28374,3
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

26441,1
Crucial m550 256 GB

26157,3
Corsair Force LX 256GB

25475,6
Crucial MX100 256 GB

24566,7
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

24107,4
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

24077,3
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

18938,4
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

17251,3
IOPS / s

The web server benchmark allows data of various block sizes to be read continuously and shows that the lower synthetic reading performance does not have as negative an effect in practice as the synthetic benchmarks suggest. In the entry-level segment, the ARC 100 only has to admit defeat to the Samsung EVO.

[Iometer]
[File server]
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

28599,0
Crucial m550 1TB

28219,6
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

26362,1
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

22986,5
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

20031,7
Crucial MX100 256 GB

17044,0
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

16410,3
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

15682,3
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

14102,8
Crucial m550 256 GB

13885,9
Corsair Force LX 256GB

12054,9
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

11602,3
Samsung 840 120GB

8325,0
IOPS / s

This clearly shows the strengths of the Barefoot 3 models from OCZ. The Radeon R7 clearly outperforms the competition in the two write-oriented tests. It even has a higher performance than the 1 TB variant of the M550 from Crucial, although it has a lead with significantly larger spare areas. The influence of the drive size becomes clear when you compare it with the measured value of the 256 GB version of the M550. OCZ's promise of long-lasting write performance under load can also be seen as fulfilled here.

[Iometer]
[Workstation]
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

38440,4
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

38000,1
Crucial m550 1TB

35515,2
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

26852,5
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

21413,8
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

15622,1
Crucial m550 256 GB

13170,2
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

11320,9
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

10846,4
Corsair Force LX 256GB

10138,8
Samsung 840 120GB

9483,1
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

7546,2
Crucial MX100 256 GB

7464,0
IOPS / s

HT4U OpenOffice copy test

Our OpenOffice copy test duplicates the OpenOffice installation files on the test drive. Since today's SSDs do this in no time at all, we have increased the amount of data twelve-fold. Ultimately, 3,06 GB in over 48.000 files of various sizes are read on the test drive and immediately written to another location on the test drive.
[Xcopy]
[OpenOffice copy test]
Samsung 840 120GB

50,8
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

43,2
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

35,3
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

34,9
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

34,5
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

34,3
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

33,4
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

33,4
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

32,3
Crucial MX100 256 GB

31,4
Crucial m550 256 GB

30,5
Corsair Force LX 256GB

30,1
Crucial m550 1TB

30,0
Duration in seconds (less is better)

In the simple copy test, the test person runs along in the middle field without any abnormalities.

PCMark7 trace benchmarks

PCMark7 simulates various use cases that are aimed primarily at private multimedia. From the memory tests available in PCMark7, we have selected those that show the greatest differences in performance between devices in the most varied of performance classes.
[PCMark, 7]
[Image import]
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

30,4
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

30,4
Crucial m550 256 GB

30,3
Crucial m550 1TB

30,3
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

30,2
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

30,1
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

29,9
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

29,3
Crucial MX100 256 GB

28,4
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

28,2
Corsair Force LX 256GB

27,5
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

26,5
Samsung 840 120GB

21,0
MByte / s

With the slight reading weakness and the strong writing behavior, the Radeon R7 cannot really set itself apart from the competition in the more reading-oriented practical tests. The priorities with this drive are the heavier loads.

[PCMark, 7]
[Video editing]
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

23,7
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

23,7
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

23,6
Crucial m550 256 GB

23,4
Crucial m550 1TB

23,4
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

23,3
Crucial MX100 256 GB

23,3
Samsung 840 120GB

23,2
Corsair Force LX 256GB

23,2
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

23,2
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

22,4
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

22,3
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

22,3
MByte / s
[PCMark, 7]
[Application start]
Crucial MX100 256 GB

69,3
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

67,5
Crucial m550 1TB

63,6
Crucial m550 256 GB

63,2
Corsair Force LX 256GB

62,0
Samsung 840 120GB

60,9
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

60,6
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

59,1
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

58,3
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

56,8
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

55,1
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

52,4
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

51,8
MByte / s
[PCMark, 7]
[Games]
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

17,5
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

17,3
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

17,2
Crucial m550 256 GB

17,1
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

17,1
Crucial m550 1TB

17,0
Crucial MX100 256 GB

17,0
Samsung 840 120GB

17,0
Corsair Force LX 256GB

17,0
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

16,9
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

16,7
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

16,3
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

16,3
MByte / s

Continuous load curves

This test is based on the "Solid State Storage Performance Test Specification" of the SNIA (Storage Networking Industry Association). It should show the behavior of the SSD under continuous load and also show what minimum performance the user can rely on and how stable the performance is in such a case. For this purpose, the SSD is continuously written with 4k random writes with a queue depth of 32. The longer the SSD can maintain its high initial performance and the higher the permanent performance after the break-in, the better. This test scenario is like that Worst case and less important for normal home applications as it tends to target higher loads. This test shows the loss of performance over time with constant load. With lower loads or fewer parallel accesses, the loss of performance will accordingly only occur later!

When looking at the graph, you get the impression that the SSD is artificially withheld at a level of 73.000 to 75.000 IOPS, because at the beginning of the transition phase the drive increases again to over 80.000 IOPS. As with any SSD, the performance drops in the transition phase when there are no more free blocks and the garbage collection has to actively ensure free blocks even during writing. The Radeon R7 falls to an average of 20.000 IOPS, which puts it well ahead of the competition. The lead over the ARC 100 is probably due to the higher frequency of the controller. The M10 version of the Barefoot 3 on the ARC 100 clocks at 352 MHz, while the M00 version on the Radeon 7 runs at 397 MHz.

Steady State Performance

Steady state mean

AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

20000,0
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

18300,0
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

12300,0
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

9900,0
Samsung 840 120GB

5200,0
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

4900,0
Crucial m550 1TB

4900,0
Crucial m550 256 GB

4200,0
Crucial MX100 256 GB

4200,0
Corsair Force LX 256GB

3900,0
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

3400,0
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

3400,0
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

3400,0
IOPS

Furthermore, it can be stated that the controller clears some of the blocks via garbage collection during idle times. He showed that this cannot be taken for granted Test the Samsung 840 Pro, which therefore also did relatively poorly for a performance model in the load scenario in the sequential Iometer write test.

input

We measure the real power consumption using a clamp meter in the five application scenarios Idle, Random Read, Random Write, Sequential Read and Sequential Write. From these five basic values, everyone can determine the appropriate total consumption, depending on the distribution of the conditions in the specific case.
In practice, the idle portion clearly predominates, since SSDs are rarely used continuously.
power consumption

idle

Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

1,3
Crucial m550 256 GB

1,1
Crucial m550 1TB

1,1
Crucial MX100 256 GB

1,0
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

0,9
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

0,7
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

0,7
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

0,6
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

0,6
Samsung 840 120GB

0,4
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

0,4
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

0,4
W

The idle values ​​are not very high with results of around 0,6 watts. Since additional energy-saving modes such as DevSleep are not supported, the energy consumption cannot be reduced any further.

power consumption

Random Read

Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

2,1
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

1,8
Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

1,8
Crucial m550 1TB

1,8
Crucial m550 256 GB

1,8
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

1,7
Crucial MX100 256 GB

1,6
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

1,4
Samsung 840 120GB

1,2
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

1,1
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

1,1
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

1,0
W
power consumption

Seq. Read

Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

3,3
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

2,9
Crucial m550 1TB

2,8
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

2,8
Crucial m550 256 GB

2,7
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

2,6
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

2,3
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

2,3
Crucial MX100 256 GB

2,1
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

2,0
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

1,9
Samsung 840 120GB

1,2
W
power consumption

Random Write

Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

5,0
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

3,8
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

3,5
Crucial m550 1TB

3,2
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

3,0
Crucial m550 256 GB

2,9
Crucial MX100 256 GB

2,6
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

2,4
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

2,3
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

2,2
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

2,0
Samsung 840 120GB

1,5
W
power consumption

Seq. Write

Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB

5,3
Crucial m550 1TB

4,8
Sandisk Extreme II 240 GB

4,6
AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240GB

4,4
Crucial m550 256 GB

4,3
Sandisk Extreme 240GB

4,0
OCZ ARC 100 240GB

3,9
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB

3,6
Sandisk Ultra Plus 256 GB

3,0
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB

2,5
Crucial MX100 256 GB

2,5
Samsung 840 120GB

1,9
W

For technological reasons, paperwork is the most power-hungry, as the cells then have to be charged and discharged and the controller has the most computing effort. Consumption of 5 watts sounds like a lot for SSDs, but you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that in most cases these are idle, and when something needs to be done, it's mostly read access. You should therefore always see these results in relation to your own use of the SSD.

Summary

Let's summarize how the drive fares in the individual categories: While the simple performance data for sequential read and write rates do not stand out from the competition, the Radeon R7 SSD clearly leaves the competition products behind under load . On the other hand, it weakens when reading randomly in comparison with the other models from the performance segment, but it is even more noticeable when writing randomly.

Test scoring AMD OCZ Radeon R7 240 GB
Reading performance +
Writing performance +
Durability +
Load behavior semi / professional segment ++
input o
What's in the box o
Price level in the performance segment (as of 14.02.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX) ++
Price per GB (price comparison 14.02.2015/XNUMX/XNUMX) € 0,52 / GB (240 GB)
Evaluation options: ++ [very good] / + [good] / o [satisfactory] / - [bad] / - [very bad]
Price comparison: 125 Euros Amazon: 127 Euros Manufacturer product page

Marketing places the Radeon R7 SSD as a drive for gamers. This SSD is no less suitable for this than the competing products. The measurable reading weakness is only measurable in practice, but not noticeable. The Radeon R7 is noticeable because of its much better performance in load scenarios than the competition. In other words, the area where the wheat is still separated from the chaff these days.

Model Price comparison to Geizhals (February 2015)
AMD Radeon R7 240 GB 125 €
Crucial M550 256 GB 100 €
Corsair Neutron GTX 240 GB 173 €
Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB 143 €
Samsung 850 Pro 256 GB 143 €
SanDisk Extreme Pro 240 GB 130 €

In addition, their price has fallen massively since it was launched. In the field of performance models there are cheaper candidates like the Crucial M550 with 256 GB. However, this has lower write rates and even less performance under load. While the Radeon R7 can hardly stand out from the competition in systems with little load, nothing speaks against a bundle in a gamer's computer. But its price-performance ratio is really unbeatable as a cheap SSD in workstation use.

[ri], February 14, 2015

About David Maul

David Maul is a qualified business IT specialist with a passion for hardware