The ADATA XPG SX6000 Pro 1TB SSD Review: Realtek's Entry-level NVMe Solution
by Billy Tallis on December 18, 2019 12:30 PM ESTRandom Read Performance
Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.
The burst random read performance from the ADATA XPG SX6000 Pro is rather disappointing considering what drives with Silicon Motion controllers get out of the same NAND, but at least it's still a bit faster than the Crucial MX500 SATA drive that also uses Micron 64L TLC.
Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.
The SX6000 Pro ranks about the same on the longer random read test, but this level of performance is more expected here given that it's a DRAMless SSD. However, the Mushkin Helix-L is in the same boat and still manages to be 28% faster.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
Realtek's SSD controllers are still in last place for power efficiency, but the efficiency score for the SX6000 Pro is only a bit worse than for the Samsung 970 EVO Plus. The power draw of just under 2W is in the normal range for NVMe SSDs in general, but the other low-end drives draw closer to 1W.
 |
|||||||||
The random read performance of the SX6000 Pro starts out slow at QD1 but it scales up reasonably well for a 4-channel controller. Unfortunately, power consumption also scales up, so even at higher queue depths it is still relatively inefficient.
With a high enough queue depth, the random read performance of the SX6000 Pro does climb out of SATA territory, but not by much. It definitely draws more power than most drives across the entire range of tested queue depths, but isn't quite record-setting.
Random Write Performance
Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.
The burst random write performance of the SX6000 Pro is way above what the SATA drives manage, but is on the low side by NVMe standards—even when considering just the low-end NVMe drives.
As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.
On the longer random write test, the SX6000 Pro falls far behind the high-end NVMe drives and is a bit slower than the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD. The SX6000 Pro is the fastest of the DRAMless drives in this bunch, but the Intel 660p's strategy of using QLC NAND with DRAM makes it by far the fastest low-end NVMe drive on this test.
 |
|||||||||
| Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W | ||||||||
The SX6000 Pro is the fastest DRAMless drive on this test, but it's also by far the most power-hungry, so its efficiency score is significantly worse than that of the Mushkin Helix-L.
 |
|||||||||
Performance and power consumption from the SX6000 Pro are unsteady throughout the random write test, but the overall trend is flat. That plus the fact that lower performance corresponds to higher power consumption shows that the drive is bottlenecked by background work, and it needs more idle time than this test provides.
Since the SX6000 Pro's SLC cache is far less effective for random writes than sequential, and it is slow about completing background maintenance, the drive is stuck firmly in SATA performance territory with power efficiency that is mediocre at best.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Billy Tallis - Wednesday, December 18, 2019 - link
My mindset is that your complaint isn't specific to the SX6000P; it's true of the entire category of "low-end NVMe" drives, so I don't want to single out the SX6000P for suffering from the same problem that all of its closest competitors also suffer from. It's halfway-decent at what it's trying to be, but it's trying to compete in a niche that barely exists in the first place.At least for the retail SSD market. The most popular retail NVMe SSDs are all high-end drives, so they get economies of scale that the low-end models don't, and that's why E12 and SM2262 drives can be priced so close to low-end NVMe. But in the OEM market, low-end NVMe drives do have a more compelling value proposition, and that's where the controller vendors make the real money.
That in turn influences what kind of drive designs the SSD vendors have on hand to readily convert into a retail product. The best example of this is the WD Blue SN500/SN550 series, which existed as an OEM product for a year before it came to retail. There's also Toshiba's BG series, which has been through four generations and they only bothered to do a retail release of one of them.
Great_Scott - Wednesday, December 18, 2019 - link
The SSD market is and has been monstrously compressed.The difference between performance tiers for SATA is frequently $10/tier. (excepting the occasional Samsung drive.)
I don't see that anything is substantially different for NVMe. This is a good, maybe great, budget drive. The problem being that you can spend $10 for a far better one.
At some point in the future where price isn't entirely dictated by Flash BoM this might change, but for now it only makes sense to get the best drive in a category since they all cost about the same.
Freeb!rd - Thursday, December 19, 2019 - link
My thoughts also... I was looking at NVMe Gen4x4 drives at around $200 for 1TB, but then saw the EVO 970 Plus was out performing them, almost bought that on Monday for $199, but saw a Sabrient Gen4 for $168 with $11 coupon on Amazon and went with that... NOW Amazon has the EVO 970 Plus for $169... which ever way the wind blows is the best value it seems. Although, Amazon has those "morphing" prices that seem to change often, probably based on your search habits. $169 for the EVO 970 Plus 1TB vs. $539 for the 2TB? Maybe Amazon tells vendors where the majority of sales volume is coming (ie 1TB) and competitors are getting more sales through via a certain price and miraculously the Samsung EVO price drops to match in a few days!! I'm sure Amazon analytics provided to their vendors play a part, probably be back to $239 after Xmas.Freeb!rd - Thursday, December 19, 2019 - link
FYI, so the Sabrient Gen4 was $157.xx after coupon, still a great deal on a Gen4x4 drive for my new X570 motherboard.HarryVoyager - Thursday, December 19, 2019 - link
The pricing is what makes all of this somewhat nuts. When I rebuilt my machine a month or so ago I ended up going with the 660p because I could get the 2TB version for around $170.While it isn't near the top of the heap for the destroyer, I don't do transfers of much more than a few GB at a time, and those are limited more by my Internet connection than by the drive.
I've also got a professional grade SATA SSD, and despite its synthetic benchmarks being an order of magnitude lower than the 660p, I honestly can't tell a difference between what's installed on which. And I'm a heavy gamer who runs stuff that is notorious for slow load times and heavy RAM usuage. Even there, I'm not usually pulling more that 20Gb of data in a set, so it's just not a big difference.
dragosmp - Thursday, December 19, 2019 - link
QLC was supposed to help with this segmentation. Hard to make a low end drive much cheaper just by not adding a 2$ DRAM chip and some PCB traces.Crucial P1 tends to kinda fulfill the QLC promise. It is sometimes at or around 80$ on offer for 1TB, has good warranty and performs quite well:
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2533?vs=22...
tlmiller76 - Saturday, December 21, 2019 - link
I gotta disagree with the P1. I have one (1TB), and to be honest, I hate it. It's just...garbage in every way. I actually HAD an SX6000 Pro 1TB (unfortunately forgot to swap it out before I sold the laptop it was in) and it was so much better than the P1 they weren't even in the same zip code.zmatt - Saturday, December 21, 2019 - link
IMO low end NVMe drives aren't worth considering at all. If you dont have the money for a Samsung Evo then dont both because you aren't really seeing the benefits. Obviously this doesn't apply in the case of a laptop or SFF where you may not have a choice.TheUnhandledException - Wednesday, December 18, 2019 - link
It would be nice is low end NVMe drives were significantly cheaper but at least right now they are not. I don't really see the rationale for paying 2% less and getting 40% lower performance.sean8102 - Monday, February 3, 2020 - link
I upgraded from a 256GB SATA Samsung 840 Pro (my first SSD ever) to the HP EX 920 1TB and love it. Never thought I'd end up going with a HP SSD but their EX 9x0 product line is great. Thinking of getting another NVME drive just for games and going with the EX 950.