The HP S700 And S700 Pro SSD Review
by Billy Tallis on September 7, 2017 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.
We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.
The average data rates of the S700 Pros on The Destroyer are slightly faster than the ATATA SU800 except at the 128GB capacity. The S700's disadvantage relative to the S700 Pro is more pronounced at higher capacities, growing from a 15% gap at the 120GB/128GB capacity range to almost 30% between the 500GB S700 and 512GB S700 Pro.
The 250GB S700 surprises with a lower average latency than the 256GB S700 Pro, and at this capacity point and the 500GB/512GB capacity point both HP drives score better than the ADATA SU800. The 99th percentile latency scores aren't as good, with the S700 coming in last place at every capacity point and the S700 Pro only beating the ADATA SU800 in the 256GB capacity.
The average read latencies of the HP S700s are almost tied with the S700 Pro at the smallest capacity configuration, but the larger drives show a substantial gap. Average write latencies for the S700 are actually better than the S700 Pro and the ADATA SU800 except for the 120GB capacity.
The HP S700 does not have a particular problem with garbage collection getting in the way of read operations as its 99th percentile read latency scores are better than the S700 Pro's scores and are reasonable even when compared to mid-range SATA drives and even drives using MLC. The 99th percentile write latency scores are poor for both the S700 and S700 Pro, but the ADATA SU800 is no better except for its 128GB capacity.
The DRAMless HP S700 is more energy-efficient on The Destroyer than the faster HP S700 Pro, and both beat the ADATA SU800. All of these drives obey the usual pattern of higher capacities offering better efficiency under load thanks to their higher performance being more than enough to offset higher overall power levels.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
blahsaysblah - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
Anyone see the size of the S700 and think a new plug-in format for SSDs is in order. Been wishing for vertical M.2. ports since they launched. 2280 is definitely shorter than any standard video card and 2242 would be easy to engineer so it cant be snapped off easily/accidentally.Just a row of SATA M.2 cards lined up not too close to video card. Or, six M.2 ports to replace the SATA ports normally on a board. Wish cables would go away sooner.
romrunning - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
Sure, look at the U.2 connector. More enterprise use right now, but it's on some consumer boards as well. It can connect PCIe NVMe drives.blahsaysblah - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
Way too big. I dont understand why m.2 cant be made vertical, especially for a 2242 or 2230 sized card.Just plug in cards like DIMMs,...though i checked, they are only around 30-32mm high.
No more cables, just plug the storage directly into motherboard.
Space Jam - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
>While the HP S700 and S700 Pro are not currently priced competitively, they do show that there's value in continued firmware tuning. More than a year after Micron's 32-layer 3D NAND hit the market, the HP S700 sets a new record for sequential read performance from a four-channel controller, and helps show that DRAMless SSDs can't be immediately dismissed from consideration.With the pricing being what it is this SSD is laughable. For me this is kind of a deathnail for the idea of DRAMless SSDs as it's not cheaper, which is the whole reason for sacrificing DRAM and stomaching a substantial performance differential. And its DRAM posting Pro-variant manages to tango with the better drives...by being significantly more expensive with a meager warranty; albeit with fairly generous write endurance ratings...not that that matters with performance dropping like a rock on both S700 and S700 Pro as it reaches full.
The best I can say about the drive is that it isn't a HDD.
RaistlinZ - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link
Sorry Billy Tallis, but there's no reason to buy either of these SSD's. They cost MORE and perform WORSE than drives that have been out for a few years now.StrangerGuy - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
If could be that the only purpose of your massive failure of your product is to serve as a warning to others.lilmoe - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
This is where i would normally complain that this is worthless and meaningless in the presence of the 850 evo. But this coming from hp might serve as a warning for ssd oems TO DROP THE DAMN PROCESS. I seriously hope that's the case, and i seriously hope other pc oems follow.As bad a this ssd looks, it would be a huge upgrade for anyone buying a laptop in the $400-600 range.
lilmoe - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
*PRICESSanX - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
Only high tech resellers salespeople here? In two decades I've never heard a word anyone discussed the manufacturing cost of anything at politically correct Anandtech and how rigged the component pricing is. Good example: manufacturing cost of flash was $1/GB in 2009. You will see true manufacturing cost only in the peaks of recessions. And now look at current $0.5/GB. Just factor of 2 progress in 8 years?... rotflATC9001 - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link
Can't hold a candle to the 850 Evo that's...3 years old now? And is more expensive...*Yawn* next.