The Toshiba RC100 SSD Review: Tiny Drive In A Big Market
by Billy Tallis on June 14, 2018 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.
Once again the 240GB Toshiba RC100 exhibits very poor performance overall when the drive is full, and the 480GB doesn't do particularly well in that situation either. But for the more typical case of running the Light test on a drive that isn't full, both RC100s are competitive with other low-end NVMe SSDs and much faster than SATA drives.
Most of the low-end NVMe SSDs show substantially higher latency when running the Light test on a full drive, so the RC100's results aren't quite as extreme an outlier. The RC100 is actually better off with HMB off for the full-drive runs of this test, possibly because the overhead of the extra PCIe communication isn't worthwhile when the cache isn't going to be of much use.
Average read and write latencies are both competitive for the RC100's empty-drive test runs, and the full-drive read latencies are high but aren't extreme outliers. It's the write latency that really causes problems for the RC100 when it is full.
The 99th percentile read and write latency scores show similar results to the averages, but more prominently highlight the drives that are having trouble—which is mostly just the RC100, though the 600p's 99th percentile write latency is pretty bad, too.
The Toshiba RC100 doesn't quite manage to beat the Crucial MX500 SATA drive for energy usage on this test, but it's first-place among its NVMe competition for the empty-drive test runs, and isn't unreasonably power-hungry even when it is performing poorly.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Samus - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I didn’t consider it either. The WD Black hit the sweet spot for me, picked the 512GB up on sale for $150...Ryan Smith - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
"My issue with Anandtech was the sole posting of the 970 EVO review and no 970 PRO review now for over 7 weeks."On the hardware side of matters, Samsung sampled us the 970 EVO at launch. They did not sample us the 970 PRO at that time. So that greatly impacts what gets reviewed and when.
XabanakFanatik - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I'm very confused at why Samsung would have sampled several other review sites with both drives (obvious by the reviews of both being posted together before launch) but have skipped on sampling Anandtech at the same time.Maybe it was a mistake? Maybe it was intentional? Maybe the 970 Pro would not have shined as well in the thorough testing you do here?
In any case, I need to apologize. Sorry, Billy, for jumping you about it. Thanks for an answer.
Ryan Smith - Friday, June 15, 2018 - link
Samsung essentially does random sampling. We got the EVO at two capacities instead of an EVO and a PRO.melgross - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Well, maybe that answers your question. If those other sites are inferior, then why would you care that they came out with early reviews?The truth is that these drives will provide more than enough performance for most people, and that includes most people here, if they’re willing to admit it.
CheapSushi - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
Why are you so cranky? Seriously. Eat a snickers.gglaw - Wednesday, June 20, 2018 - link
He had a completely legitimate request/concern. If historically AT and other big sites typically review the top 2 models of any given release at a time like previous generation EVO/EVO Pro, GTX 1070/1080, etc., and HE has an interest in the product even if he's part of the <5% who cares, a thorough review would still be very significant for a semi expensive purchase. Most of us have 0 intention of buying the vast, vast majority of the reviews we read - we just like to know how new products are performing. Just like Billy and many of us here, the Toshiba drive is interesting but very few of us have any intention of buying it.Flagship products may only interest a very small percentage of the general public, but a much higher percentage of techies who follow hardware sites and even engage in the forums and comments. Most of us hardware enthusiasts buy plenty of things with almost no practical value. Anything beyong the AT light SSD testing is completely irrelevant to most home users yet we still care about the destroyer and heavy tests. I have the 850, 850 pro, 960 evo, 960 pro, and the cheapest per GB drive ever released (The Micron 3D TLC 2TB drive that goes on sale for $270 range every other week and barely above $200 with the father's day ebay coupon). My LAN room has all these drives running almost side by side and sadly no one including myself can even tell which drive is in which gaming station. Yet, I have no issues with paying 400% more per GB on one drive vs another that I literally can't tell the difference in when using the computers. The meaningless but insane numbers I see on CrystalMark somehow gives me some satisfaction.
Without Ryan clarifying the issue, most of us just assume products are sampled together based on how the reviews have come out in the past. Knowing this was different than their typical review pattern, maybe they should've just clarified it in the intro. Bashing them was unnecessary, but questioning why they would omit a major flagship release is completely valid. Flagship reviews are very interesting whether or not we buy them. They're indicative of many things that trickle down or where a company is in their technological advancement compared to others. Just because there is minimal real world difference between the 850/pro, 960/pro, how do we know they didn't tweak the 970 pro more? If Nvidia's flahship destroy's AMD's but their current midrange products are similar price/performance, there's a good chance the next midrange GTX card will be the midrange king (the 1060 comes out after 1080, the 1160 will come out after the 1180).
ptrinh1979 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link
I also find reviews like these to be refreshing. I prefer a variety of product reviews, not *just* the latest, greatest, and sometimes unattainable products. This review was very interesting to me because despite its flaws when the drive is full at lower capacities, its performance to price ratio makes it a contender for casual workloads. What was *really* useful for me was the price comparison chart at the end with the different capacities. I would use charts like that, and then cross reference the performance characteristics when I am recommending drive upgrades for clients who do not always have top dollars to spend, nor justify on an upgrade, yet not content to recommend typical upgrades, or corporate style upgrade recommendations.jabber - Saturday, June 16, 2018 - link
I like the reviews of the cheaper but still 'decent' gear as it works for my customers who don't want screaming top end stuff but want something better then spinning rust. Decent budget SSD options are important.ChickaBoom4768 - Saturday, June 16, 2018 - link
Totally agree with you. Such low priced technology has a real potential to disrupt the existing market instead of another $600 Intel/Samsung drive. In this case of course the drive is a sad disappointment but it was a good review.