The Pro has hardly any advantage over the Eco, doesn't it? A bit of endurance and random write performance, while neither achieve any remarkable values. Fair enough if the Pro hardly costs more, though.
"Among the PRO models, the biggest performance change is a drop in random write speed from 37k IOPS to 32k IOPS."
"On the PRO models, endurance has been greatly reduced, from 2.5 DWPD to 1.3-1.7 DWPD."
So basically this is saying that this "new" PRO model is worse than the product it is replacing. Pretty pathetic. Reading between the lines, Micron is saying we are just out to make more money on this model; there's no other reason for it.
This is part of the reason why I stick with Intel enterprise SSDs for my servers.
You're misreading the charts and the accompanying text. The performance drop and endurance reduction you're referencing are not a drop from the ECO series to the PRO series. They are a drop from the higher-capacity 1.92TB PRO to the lower-capacity 960GB PRO. Micron is not trying to sell you a blatantly inferior product for more money by slapping a PRO label on it.
I would definitely be interested in seeing these drives get a taste of the Destroyer test to see how they compare to what's on the market.
Hmm.. I think you might be misreading. Check out the writer's text again, and also check out the link he included back to the 5100.
For example, the 5200 PRO has 32k IOPS for both capacities in the Random Write. The 5100 PRO is cited at 37k in his text; that's NOT the 5200 ECO. In fact, according to the previous article on the 5100 series, it seems like the top end of the 5100 PRO is 43k IOPS in random write (QD=32).
So it's not between the PRO and ECO models; it's between the preceding 5100 PRO and the new 5200 PRO. In virtually every benchmark, it seems that the 5100 PRO is much better than the 5200 PRO. Perhaps the actual performance might be better in tests like the Destroyer.
Well look at that. I was reading it wrong. Performance and endurance drops are from the older 5100 PRO to the newer 5200 PRO. Definitely odd that Micron is lowering the bar on 2 of the most important specs for enterprise SSDs compared to the old ones, especially considering this is using their newer 2nd-gen 3D flash. Is there any pricing info for these drives yet? I would hope there is an explanation for this other than "give us your money". Given that the MAX line is completely gone they don't even have an option anymore for a higher-endurance drive.
I wouldn't have a problem with this spec degradation is the price is right. Because if you're in for real performance or endurance, you'd look at higher spec models anyway like the 9100 / 9200.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
6 Comments
Back to Article
MrSpadge - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
The Pro has hardly any advantage over the Eco, doesn't it? A bit of endurance and random write performance, while neither achieve any remarkable values. Fair enough if the Pro hardly costs more, though.romrunning - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
I love these statements:"Among the PRO models, the biggest performance change is a drop in random write speed from 37k IOPS to 32k IOPS."
"On the PRO models, endurance has been greatly reduced, from 2.5 DWPD to 1.3-1.7 DWPD."
So basically this is saying that this "new" PRO model is worse than the product it is replacing. Pretty pathetic. Reading between the lines, Micron is saying we are just out to make more money on this model; there's no other reason for it.
This is part of the reason why I stick with Intel enterprise SSDs for my servers.
WithoutWeakness - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
You're misreading the charts and the accompanying text. The performance drop and endurance reduction you're referencing are not a drop from the ECO series to the PRO series. They are a drop from the higher-capacity 1.92TB PRO to the lower-capacity 960GB PRO. Micron is not trying to sell you a blatantly inferior product for more money by slapping a PRO label on it.I would definitely be interested in seeing these drives get a taste of the Destroyer test to see how they compare to what's on the market.
romrunning - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Hmm.. I think you might be misreading. Check out the writer's text again, and also check out the link he included back to the 5100.For example, the 5200 PRO has 32k IOPS for both capacities in the Random Write. The 5100 PRO is cited at 37k in his text; that's NOT the 5200 ECO. In fact, according to the previous article on the 5100 series, it seems like the top end of the 5100 PRO is 43k IOPS in random write (QD=32).
So it's not between the PRO and ECO models; it's between the preceding 5100 PRO and the new 5200 PRO. In virtually every benchmark, it seems that the 5100 PRO is much better than the 5200 PRO. Perhaps the actual performance might be better in tests like the Destroyer.
WithoutWeakness - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
Well look at that. I was reading it wrong. Performance and endurance drops are from the older 5100 PRO to the newer 5200 PRO. Definitely odd that Micron is lowering the bar on 2 of the most important specs for enterprise SSDs compared to the old ones, especially considering this is using their newer 2nd-gen 3D flash. Is there any pricing info for these drives yet? I would hope there is an explanation for this other than "give us your money". Given that the MAX line is completely gone they don't even have an option anymore for a higher-endurance drive.MrSpadge - Tuesday, January 23, 2018 - link
No, romrunning understood the text correctly.I wouldn't have a problem with this spec degradation is the price is right. Because if you're in for real performance or endurance, you'd look at higher spec models anyway like the 9100 / 9200.