The SanDisk X400 1TB SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on May 6, 2016 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.
Unlike on The Destroyer, the X400 can't quite keep pace with the Crucial MX200 or other MLC drives on the Heavy test, but it is still faster than the other planar TLC drives.
The average service time of the SanDisk X400 on the Heavy test is the best among planar TLC drives, but the TLC drives are all still at the bottom of the ranking by comparison.
The number of latency outliers experienced by the X400 puts it in the same class as the other planar TLC drives, while most of the MLC drives have much tighter control on latency.
As with The Destroyer, the X400 comes in third place for power consumption and overall efficiency, behind the Crucial BX100 and MX200. This is impressive given how write-intensive the Heavy test is and how the the higher power consumption of TLC flash is usually most apparent for write operations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Michael Bay - Saturday, May 7, 2016 - link
There`s 3.1 down there somewhere too.I`d like to have the source on your percentages though.
Madpacket - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
Looks like the 1TB Mushkin Reactor (MKNSSDRE1TB) is still the best value drive to beat. Nice to see TLC drives other than Evo's getting better though.hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
there is also reactor LT, if you want 512GB.justkar4u - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link
@anandtech : Seriously ? You are trying to compare apples to oranges to grapes. You are comparing 3D NAND products with 2D NAND, MLC with TLC type products. Sandisk X400 should be compared with OCZ Trion and Crucial BX series. As you can see X400 is better than Crucial MX in some cases ! Samsung, OCZ vector, crucial MX should not even be there in comparison. With that said, clearly X400 is the winner in TLC segment.nobozos - Thursday, May 12, 2016 - link
It would sure be nice if you could include a graph in some (all?) of your charts that normalizes for cost. Raw performance is nice, but performance/$ is also very useful.Andre74 - Friday, May 27, 2016 - link
What's the deal with referring to "Power" both as W·h, and as W (but commenting on efficiency)?Efficiency would be energy consumed per byte read, for example. Effectiveness could be bytes read per second. Measuring power usage during operation tells you nothing of either efficiency or effectiveness, unless it's calculated as total energy.
BimmerInd - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link
"The Reactor is about $25 cheaper but only has a 3-year warranty and less than half the write endurance rating." Is this because of n-cache technique? MLC, TLC factors - Does it not make Mushkin a little better one?Endurance Rating
Mushkin Enhanced Reactor 1TB - 144TB
SanDisk X400 1TB - 320TB
Moreover SanDisk X400 is recommended for OEM unlike Mushkin which is targeted at consumer? Does it make a difference?
hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link
Thats just manufacturer rating. I'm sure unless Mushkin uses the crappiest MLC out there, that it will outlive sandisk x400 in terms of real world endurance.BimmerInd - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link
It says it uses Micron's NAND same as in Crucial's BX100. So which one should I choose?runasroot - Thursday, January 12, 2017 - link
I have a question: I know it states that it is 1024gb but is it a true 1024 or is it like something 960gb? I'm cloning a desktop with clonezilla and I need a 1tb ssd that is larger that 960GB to clone from disk to disk. <a href="https://wander.io">Wander</a>