Crucial P1 NVMe M.2 SSD 1 TB

[W1zzard]

Crucial has finally released their first M.2 NVMe solid-state drive. The Crucial P1 SSD is built using QLC NAND flash, which is the next generation in flash memory, promising lower cost per GB than previous technologies. In our testing, we see good results that are competitive with popular TLC drives like the Samsung 970 EVO and Intel 760p.

Show full review

 

[Deleted member 50521]

So glad i grabbed a SX8200 960GB for $200. I would take a 3D TLC over QLC any day.

 

[anti-t-kom]

"

• Starts thermal throttling quickly, when heavily loaded

"

...and still "highly recommended"

 

[TheLostSwede]

Is there a typo in the official performance numbers? You saw figures that were 1GB/s higher than what Crucial claims the drive can do in terms of read performance. That's highly abnormal.

 

[StrayKAT]

Apparently the Intel QLC (660p) doesn't have these throttling issues. I figure they'd perform the same. Guess not.

 

[W1zzard]

Apparently the Intel QLC (660p) doesn't have these throttling issues. I figure they'd perform the same. Guess not.

I can only tell you when Intel decides to send me one

Is there a typo in the official performance numbers? You saw figures that were 1GB/s higher than what Crucial claims the drive can do in terms of read performance. That's highly abnormal.

My data is there, I didn't even look at their specs

"

• Starts thermal throttling quickly, when heavily loaded

"

...and still "highly recommended"

Absolutely, I doubt you'll ever get it to throttle in real life

 

[caleb]

I have MX500 SATA and it works nicely. I've ordered 860 EVO SATA to ditch all my HDD's and go with SSD's. Does it make sense to go with M.2 NVME or its enough to have it over SATA ?

 

[W1zzard]

I have MX500 SATA and it works nicely. I've ordered 860 EVO SATA to ditch all my HDD's and go with SSD's. Does it make sense to go with M.2 NVME or its enough to have it over SATA ?

Comes down to whether you want to spend the extra $$. You won't see a huge difference in your daily use. If you go with NVMe, tell us your experience

 

[StrayKAT]

Comes down to whether you want to spend the extra $$. You won't see a huge difference in your daily use. If you go with NVMe, tell us your experience

Even as someone who splurged on a 900p, I have to agree (technically, that's faster than M.2.. but either way, I was pretty happy with an 850 Evo as well).

 

[Assimilator]

Gief cheap QLC SATA SSDs for bulk storage pls.

Seriously, nobody cares about another middle-of-the-pack NVMe drive in a market that's saturated with them. What we do care about are either a new performance king (good luck with that while Samsung is around) or a new low in cost/GB, and the latter is where manufacturers should be focusing their QLC efforts.

 

[StrayKAT]

Gief cheap QLC SATA SSDs for bulk storage pls.

Seriously, nobody cares about another middle-of-the-pack NVMe drive in a market that's saturated with them. What we do care about are either a new performance king (good luck with that while Samsung is around) or a new low in cost/GB, and the latter is where manufacturers should be focusing their QLC efforts.

I was under the impression that QLC is theoretically capable of more space. But I guess it's not here yet for consumers.

 

[TheLostSwede]

@W1zzard Tom's seems to have numbers that align more with the official specs https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crucial-p1-nvme-ssd-qlc,review-34592-2.html
Care to double check your numbers?

 

[W1zzard]

@W1zzard Tom's seems to have numbers that align more with the official specs https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crucial-p1-nvme-ssd-qlc,review-34592-2.html
Care to double check your numbers?

3.2 GB/s, no problem

 

[Ferrum Master]

Toms and @W1zzard silicon differs... As usual tbh...

W1z has slower RAM IC tho. But name markings on the QLC NAND differ also, TH isn't as good as ours and didn't read the QR code on the IC itself. I cannot find datasheet for them tho, but I believe this would explain all the speed differences IMHO.

 

[bug]

Another change with QLC is the reduced endurance Crucial lists as 200 TBW for the reviewed 1 TB version of the P1. Not a big deal in my opinion, that's over 100 GB every single day over five years; and the five-year warranty also supports that Crucial trusts in this drive.

While I agree that's enough for many users, it's still little more than 0.1DWPD. If you're heavily invested in video, photo editing or something, you may want to know that.

Otherwise, I see all the expected drawbacks of adding one more level to the memory cell, with none of the benefits. Benefit, actually, since there's only one to be had: lower cost.

 

[Voluman]

Thanks for the test, i hoped a little better performance, but its okay-ish.

 

[bug]

Thanks for the test, i hoped a little better performance, but its okay-ish.

It's better than ok-ish, actually, just not for intensive usage (or going over the allotted SLC-cache).
Btw, is the SLC-cache size configurable for this drive? Cause if it is, that would add some value.

 

[W1zzard]

Btw, is the SLC-cache size configurable for this drive? Cause if it is, that would add some value.

Not that I know of. Is it configurable for any drive? Never hard of such a thing

 

[bug]

Not that I know of. Is it configurable for any drive? Never hard of such a thing

I might have mixed that up with overprovisioning, I'm not sure.

 

[W1zzard]

I might have mixed that up with overprovisioning, I'm not sure.

Overprovisioning is easy to control, just create a smaller partition, leaving some space unpartitioned. This works on all storage, including HDDs

 

[TheLostSwede]

3.2 GB/s, no problem

That's really surprising. I've never seen an SSD that performs that much faster than the rated spec. 10's of MB/s is obviously normal, 100's of MB/s happens in a few instances, but you're seeing numbers that 1.2GB/s faster than what Crucial rate the drive at. None of the other reviews are getting anywhere near your numbers. Something very odd is going on here. Or you're the luckiest person ever. Did you buy a lottery ticket?

 

[W1zzard]

Toms and @W1zzard silicon differs... As usual tbh...

W1z has slower RAM IC tho. But name markings on the QLC NAND differ also, TH isn't as good as ours and didn't read the QR code on the IC itself. I cannot find datasheet for them tho, but I believe this would explain all the speed differences IMHO.

The differences are due to 500 GB vs 1 TB version (they tested both)

 

[Ferrum Master]

The differences are due to 500 GB vs 1 TB version (they tested both)

Ah, yes, they reviewed a 1TB yet put images from 500GB version.

I give up, it is really fishy why yours perform like mad.

 

[Voluman]

It's better than ok-ish, actually, just not for intensive usage (or going over the allotted SLC-cache).
Btw, is the SLC-cache size configurable for this drive? Cause if it is, that would add some value.

Yeah, its maybe more than okay-ish, but that direct write to cell part seems low. Somehow i always find pretty quickly bottleneck of things when i play with in real

 

[bug]

@Voluman That's the unescapable downside of stacking more bits into a single cell
Whoever needs to do intensive writes has to shell out for a more expensive MLC drive. Or maybe XPoint, at some point (pun intended).