SK Hynix SC308 SSD Review

[Guest]

SK Hynix had a great 2016 with a pair of excellent consumer SSDs. The SC308 looks to keep the streak alive with its multi-level cell (MLC) NAND at TLC pricing.

SK Hynix SC308 SSD Review : Read more

 

[eyupo92]

The interface/protocol entry 'NVMe 1.2' on the specifications table is wrong - I have testing 128 GB 2.5" and 256 GB m.2 versions, and they are SATA 6 Gbps. In the article you are already mentioning it as SATA, so fixing the table would solve this small issue.

 

[mapesdhs]

$130 for the MX300? I wish; it's more like $195 equivalent here (UK). Strangely, the disparity vs. the 850 EVO is less severe, it's priced the same as the MX300, with the SL308 a bit below that. No sign yet of the SC308 from normal sources.

 

[alextheblue]

I applaud the use of MLC, but without a really good controller, it's kind of a waste. For most users, older SATA systems upgrading to an SSD will still be better served with an 850 Evo or similar. It's better in typical end-user scenarios, they don't need the heavy workload and sustained performance as much as they need the light workload / burst speed. I would especially point to the random mixed workload (80% reads) - I feel that sort of test is fairly good at highlighting the differences in performance for the average user's workload.

I find it kind of sad there isn't really anything that fully dethrones the 850 Evo on performance/value in the SATA world. It's been what, 2.5 years? Longer? There's still a lot of older systems with plenty of CPU horsepower, for which an SSD upgrade from a mechanical drive would vastly improve user experience.

 

[cryoburner]

The low mixed workload performance really hurts the user experience, and that shows in the PCMark 8 Storage test.

...Tom's claims, immediately after posting a bunch of "Real-World Software Performance" charts that show all the drives performing very similar to one another. In what way does it "really hurt the user experience" when there's only around a 2% difference in application performance between the drives? Is anyone even going to subjectively distinguish such a difference? If it takes an extra 2 seconds to complete a 2 minute task, how much does that even really matter? Is it worth paying 20% more for another drive just to get 2% better performance in real-world tasks?

 

[derekullo]

Ooo I recognize this as the ssd in the Dell 7440s we just bought at work (256 gigabytes).

When your sequential read is basically the limit of SATA and you are pushing 9000 -12000 iops at a queue depth of 1 - 2 the bottleneck is no longer the storage device, it's the storage interface, SATA.

Having said that the only way to really compete is:

1. Battery Life (40 minutes is noticeable between this drive and the Samsung)
2. IOPS at a queue depth of 1 - 4 (Basically so you can put a higher number on the packaging)
3. Write Speed

I use a Patriot Memory 256GB Supersonic Magnum 2 with the Windows 7 Bootable install and I'm able to install a fresh Windows 7 in about 10 minutes on a computer with this ssd.
Windows update is blazingly fast.
I use this combination to create WIM images that I capture for use on other computers.

The read speed of the flash drive, 400 MB/s, is faster than the write speed of the Sk Hynix 261 MB/s.

I would have rathered a Samsung 960 Pro or even a Samsung 850 Evo, but I'm just glad Dell didn't give us an ADATA ... (with that write speed 62 MB/s)


We've had Sata 3.0 since 2009.

Hopefully we can see some SATA 3.2 motherboards / ssd releasing soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3.2_.2816.C2.A0Gbit.2Fs.2C_1969.C2.A0MB.2Fs.29

NVME / m.2 is faster but you are limited in the amount of drives that can be attached to the motherboard.

 

[HERETIC-1]

Hi Chris,
Agree application bandwidth is a little sad.

Thro 500 is probably the most common size for a lappy,I think 250 is
common in desktops as a boot drive-on that note is there any chance
of a review on MX300-275GB-seems to be a very popular drive-also the
WD 250 blue would be nice as well..............................
Keep up the good work.............

 

[AgentLozen]

I hate how TLC flash is ruining the solid state drive market. Whenever it's used, the outcome is ALWAYS horrendous. I can't think of a single SSD from within the last 3 years that uses TLC and is even remotely well regarded.

If you're smart like me then you'll stick with the good ol' Intel x25-m. I've got two in RAID 0 in my system at home and I have a few more sitting off to the side in case anything ever goes wrong with them. If you're not familiar with the Intel x25-m, that's because they came out before TLC reared it's ugly head. The x25-m has no competition even today because it's outfitted with MLC flash. Some people say that NVMe M.2 drives are the future, but they can't compete with my Intel drives because they are outfitted with MLC.

If you guys wanna talk about how cool MLC flash is please PM me. Don't waste my time with TLC though. You might as well be making punch cards and destroying them immediately after if you want the speed and endurance of TLC.

(If it wasn't clear, I'm being facetious. TLC is perfectly fine for home desktop use. There are plenty of drives like the Samsung 850 and 960 EVO that demonstrate that TLC is a fundamentally sound technology. Please don't PM me gushing about MLC flash. thx)

 

[CRamseyer]

The low mixed workload performance really hurts the user experience, and that shows in the PCMark 8 Storage test.

...Tom's claims, immediately after posting a bunch of "Real-World Software Performance" charts that show all the drives performing very similar to one another. In what way does it "really hurt the user experience" when there's only around a 2% difference in application performance between the drives? Is anyone even going to subjectively distinguish such a difference? If it takes an extra 2 seconds to complete a 2 minute task, how much does that even really matter? Is it worth paying 20% more for another drive just to get 2% better performance in real-world tasks?

There is a difference between throughput and latency.