It isn't just about having insane low QD performance.
I think the reason Star Citizen shows any benefit is because the game and its world are so massive. I can't see many applications falling into that category. Even then, there's likely fixed time paths that can't be sped up.
Steady-state performance is not relevant when comparing products with such high price disparity: one simply sets 10-20% space provisioning on a high end SSD and steady-state performance is no longer a factor, while price still is even with the somewhat higher price/GB induced by provisioning.Even flash-based ssds can have some minor stutters especially when in steady-state. But yeah the value for the price is very questionable. I would probably invest the money in a larger flash based drive than this.
Steady-state performance is not relevant when comparing products with such high price disparity: one simply sets 10-20% space provisioning on a high end SSD and steady-state performance is no longer a factor, while price still is even with the somewhat higher price/GB induced by provisioning.
AT used to have nice charts showing them but for some reason they got dropped / not tested anymore. I wonder why? Pressure from manufacturers? Because the steady-state performance is what matters for consumers. in fact all benches should only be done in steady-state.
No, consumer benchmarks mostly should not be done at steady state. Real-world consumer usage involves drives that aren't 100% full and do get TRIM commands and that get tons of idle time, so their SLC caches actually help and the drives aren't experiencing any thermal throttling. Steady-state tests are an unrealistic worst-case scenario. They're relevant only as a lower bound on performance or as a test of a consumer drive's suitability for enterprise workloads. They can offer an interesting window into the drive's garbage collection behavior, but no longer one that is representative of how the drive behaves in typical real-world usage.
Real-world consumer usage involves drives that aren't 100% ful
Some people say depending on implementation and drive it still doesn't work, eg. some drives don't actually clear the cells. And such a cell that has been written to needs first be cleared hence making the drive slower in this state but of course faster than being filled 100%.
No SSD drives are truly full because there are parts you can't access due to overprovisioning.
Steady-state write tests will get you pretty close, by attempting to write faster than the drive can perform garbage collection.
I have the 480GB version (PCI card) and have to say it's the fastest storage device I've had my hands on.
Prior I was using a 960 Pro and even had 3 in RAID0.
This drive is the bees knees. It can go full out pedal to the metal continously without slowing down.
I will get more when the price goes down but for this kind of performance $579 out the door for a 480GB drive isn't bad. (providing you actually can use it!)
When you factor in the need for > 200GB of space using a ramdisk, it's a bargain!
What are you doing with it?
I'm glad reality is somewhat reflecting the synthetics. That being said, your first sentence is obvious. It is the fastest storage anyone has ever had their hands on. I mean, unless you work at Area 51 and have access to alien storage mediums.
What are you doing with it?