Review 8TB Sabrent Rocket Q M.2 NVMe SSD Review: Cranking QLC Performance Up a Notch

[Admin]

Sabrent’s 8TB Rocket Q pushes QLC to higher speeds and capacities than even Intel or Micron, but it comes with reduced write endurance.

8TB Sabrent Rocket Q M.2 NVMe SSD Review: Cranking QLC Performance Up a Notch : Read more

 

[MartinBarcelona]

Good news, 1/4 of the drive being slc (to use as cache) is alot.. so best drive .. for such capacity..

Sabrent’s Rocket Q features a massive dynamic SLC write cache that spans a quarter of the SSD’s available capacity. The 8TB Rocket Q wrote a little over 2.1TB of data at 2.9 GBps before degrading to an average speed of 276 MBps after the write cache filled.

 

[waltc3]

I didn't see any for PCIex4.0, oddly enough.

 

[gio2vanni86]

Saw linus put this thing through a test. Seems fast. And the storage is heading into the right direction. The only problem i see is the same one i saw back in 2010... $$$$. Thats a steep price to swallow.

 

[geogan]

Considering how much disc recovery firms charge to attempt to recover data from failed normal SATA drives... I'd love to see how much they would charge to try and recover all 8TB of your data when this fails... if you have something like this you 100% also need to budget another couple hundred for a 10TB backup SATA drive.

I have seen ridiculous prices from some of these recovery companies like charging 500 straight up then and more to pay for the clone drive plus something like $75 for each TB over 1TB to recover. I calculated the cost of restoring a bog standard 6TB WD drive at over $1000 which for a drive that cost me $150 second hand is just <Mod Edit> ridiculous. They are gougers, talking advantage of people being desperate to recover their precious recordings/pictures/data. Don't give them the chance.

 

[mik1]

Tomshardware, I can't find any latency measurements per read operation out there! As in you give the SSD a 4K aligned read command, how many milliseconds will it take for it to respond.

I believe it is ballpark 0.5 milliseconds which is the typical for most recent M.2 NVMe SSDs currently (and Optane leads with 0.01), can you please confirm?

 

[seanwebster]

Tomshardware, I can't find any latency measurements per read operation out there! As in you give the SSD a 4K aligned read command, how many milliseconds will it take for it to respond.

I believe it is ballpark 0.5 milliseconds which is the typical for most recent M.2 NVMe SSDs currently (and Optane leads with 0.01), can you please confirm?

Double check the iometer /synthetic testing section of the benchmark pages, it should be there.

 

[mik1]

@seanwebster I reviewed page 2 and 3 carefully now and there are now IO latency numbers there.

If there would have been any screenshots of IOMeter, I presume they would have shown the latency, but none are published.

 

[seanwebster]

@seanwebster I reviewed page 2 and 3 carefully now and there are now IO latency numbers there.

If there would have been any screenshots of IOMeter, I presume they would have shown the latency, but none are published.

I don’t take screenshots of the iometer results, I log them and sort through the raw data to chart it instead.

 

[mik1]

@seanwebster i don't see any latency chart, did you provide one?

(I only see the "tracing testing", maybe that depends on latency and so reflects it, i'd greatly appreciate an actual latency metric though)

 

[seanwebster]

@seanwebster i don't see any latency chart, did you provide one?

(I only see the "tracing testing", maybe that depends on latency and so reflects it, i'd greatly appreciate an actual latency metric though)

It isn't under trace testing, it is under "synthetic testing - iometer," as mentioned previously. You need to look through the gallery for the 4K random QD1 response latency. Sequential read is only the first image of the iometer gallery.

I've attached the 8TB results from the review.