Review Team Group MP34 M.2 NVMe SSD Review: A Killer Value

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
614
89
11,090
13
The drive 476.94 GB to the user, not the 512GB for the "user" in the table.

If their software actually meant, 476.94 GiB, then it why isn't using the correct unit of measurement?
More needs to be done to call out manufacturers on their false advertising on SSD capacities, or at least to educte customers that the numbers on the box don't really mean anything anymore.
 

80-watt Hamster

Honorable
Oct 9, 2014
202
4
10,715
18
The drive 476.94 GB to the user, not the 512GB for the "user" in the table.

If their software actually meant, 476.94 GiB, then it why isn't using the correct unit of measurement?
More needs to be done to call out manufacturers on their false advertising on SSD capacities, or at least to educte customers that the numbers on the box don't really mean anything anymore.
This is not new. Drive capacity has been measured in multiples of 1000 rather than 1024 for decades.
 
Reactions: Mr Marshall

Giroro

Honorable
Jan 22, 2015
614
89
11,090
13
This is not new. Drive capacity has been measured in multiples of 1000 rather than 1024 for decades.
I am aware of that. Just because it isn't new, doesn't mean we all have to continue to sit by and accept deceptive marketing until the end of time.

Every time we go up in capacity, the difference between the marketing and reality grows larger.
 

seanwebster

Contributing Writer
Editor
Aug 30, 2018
98
22
545
3
This is not new. Drive capacity has been measured in multiples of 1000 rather than 1024 for decades.
+1
GiB is the correct unit of measurement within Windows, but in my experience, many people confuse GB and GiB, so I usually just go with GB to reduce confusion when reporting Windows usable capacity even though it is technically GiB.

Manufacturers sell drives at a power of 1000 while Windows calculates drives as powers of 1024.

512GB, 500GB, and 480GB capacity SSDs usually all have the same RAW NAND capacity of 512GiB or 549,755,813,888 bytes. Manufacturers overprovision a bit from factory for wear leveling, garbage collection, bad block management, etc. Factory over provisioning varies per device but with our example of 512GB, 500GB, and 480GB SSDs, this means that a drive goes from a usable RAW capacity of 512GiB or 549,755,813,888 bytes to 512GB / 512,000,000,000 bytes, or 500GB / 500,000,000,000 bytes, or 480GB / 48,000,000,000 bytes, which is what the manufacturer sells them as. Windows then reports those capacities as a power of 1024, which converts to ~477GiB / 476,837,158,203 bytes, ~466GiB / 465,661,287,308 bytes, or ~447GiB / 447,034,835,815 bytes.

We report the User capacity / Raw capacity in GB on our charts as to not get people too confused about the whole GiB thing, but I like to include what Windows reports anyways just because to me, it matters since that is what I'm working with within my Windows OS. Other OSes report the capacity in GB, not GiB.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Mr Marshall
Jul 4, 2019
1
0
10
0
Thank you for the quick, to the point, and easily understood article. I personally do not find it being blue PCB being much of an issue. As for me, as long as it isn't green I wouldn't list it as a con. Also, I agree that bringing up the entire argument of listed capacities etc. is beating a dead horse at this point by consumers. I do, however, have a question. If the drive is relatively filled let us say 70-80% does this affect the performance a lot especially when gaming? Sure maybe it isn't as noticeable now with a lack of over-provisioning (theoretically, not sure if you tested this or just an assumption) but I am thinking more in the near future with games going entirely to depend on SSDs of many forms.
 

seanwebster

Contributing Writer
Editor
Aug 30, 2018
98
22
545
3
Thank you for the quick, to the point, and easily understood article. I personally do not find it being blue PCB being much of an issue. As for me, as long as it isn't green I wouldn't list it as a con. Also, I agree that bringing up the entire argument of listed capacities etc. is beating a dead horse at this point by consumers. I do, however, have a question. If the drive is relatively filled let us say 70-80% does this affect the performance a lot especially when gaming? Sure maybe it isn't as noticeable now with a lack of over-provisioning (theoretically, not sure if you tested this or just an assumption) but I am thinking more in the near future with games going entirely to depend on SSDs of many forms.
It shouldn't affect read performance at all in your application...gaming is nearly all reads. Nor should that affect write performance since the SLC cache is a static size. All my testing is done with the SSD being used as the OS drive and 50% full as it is. (except the 15minutes write test which is done after a secure erase.)

70-80% full won't make much of a difference. The only time it does is when drives feature dynamic caches. They will have a smaller SLC write cache when fuller with data, although many also have a static SLC cache in place to guarantee high burst write performance, which is plenty for most consumer applications.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS