Review: Toshiba RC500 500GB NVMe M.2 SSD - Value at 10 Cents per GB

Looks like a solid upgrade for a laptop or maybe a reasonably cheap OS drive. 500GB is feeling kind of limited these days.

Kloxia? Toshiba will be known as Kloxia soon? Not sure I like the sound of that.

 

Month after month the days of the hdd getting closer to end , well for home users at least witch is great !

 

@hh
might wanna correct that:
product is backed by a 50 year warranty

@0blivious
go with generic "samsung" clone from Inland/Microcenter.
almost twice as fast, and goes up to 2TB.

@Venix
or not.
i will always keep one, just to use as a 2nd backup in a secure location
(fire/water/theft), just in case my ssd (backup) dies,
as they dont lose data without power (for longer periods) and can be recovered much easier.

 

After that review i'd be asking to show me it not throttling with a heat spreader because 81C is toasty and maybe a heat spreader wouldn't be enough to stop it from throttling in the first place.

 

I just bought a 1TB M.2 drive for £100. I'll be installing Red Dead 2 on it, for starters.

 

Price per GB isn't bad. But the lack of larger sizes makes this worthless.

 

@fry178 well yeah i have a 2 and 3 tb on my computer but if i can get 4 tb total nvme storage for under 200 euros i am going full ssd on my computer backup etc is a whole other thing.

 

Since i dont need lots of storage (dont dl stuff), i went ssd only a few years ago, just happened to have a pce 4x adapter to fit another nvme (and get rid of my last ssd),
so this looked interesting.

But even that it wont be more than a storage drive,
numbers are half, vs the 500gb inland i have.
Heck even my 256 gammix s11 is faster.
And so far, i havent seen it being cheaper (80 and up).
Around/below 50$ would be a different story.

 

@fry178 My main experience between ssds other than building few computers with nvme so i could not work with em a while to get a full picture but on windows operation etc if it was a sata ssd instead of an nvme i would have hard time guessing that and on my personal computer i had windows on an intel 330 ssd 130mb writed 440 reads ... and changed it with an 850 evo .. witch is much much faster ssd .. i noticed no difference at all , i am very confident that nvme ssd's for the majority of people as far they are do not have the worst random access in the category will be the same experience on the majority of the users i am in that majority i guess if you edit 4k and 8k raw video etc then the sequencials come well into play ?

 

Thats what most people think.
Once you start loading games you start to see the difference.
Even at 400mb/s read, loading siege held up the whole team for another 30s after everyone was "ready", when with the nvme (1-2000mb/s)loadin it, it went straight to the map.

 

@fry178 i have a feeling that those extra 30 second came from an hhd user except if the stage indeed is 12gb raw map !
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/toshiba_rc500_500gb_nvme_m_2_ssd_review,10.html although i would love to be proven wrong , i have yet to see any at least half decent ssd lagging more than 1-2 seconds behind an nvme when it comes to games

 

Going from SATA to NVMe isn't noticeable to everyone. I just recently went from a Crucial MX300 525GB to an Intel 660P 1TB.... Zero perceivable improvement in bootup or loading times. The only difference I've noticed, came from having a larger drive, and that's having actual free space on the drive....

 

Thats my perception as well!

 

Benchmarks say the same thing. The main advantage a SSD has over a(ny) regular HDD is the access-speeds which are tremendously better. NVMe doesn't improve on this.

 

I saw no precivable difference from intel 330 to samsung 850 evo that their difference is quite big so "my conclusion" was that the average seek time is where the snappiness comes from.

 

again: im not talking about boot time or normal use of desktop, nor did i say an nvme at the same ~500MB/s (what most sata drives can do)
is faster.
but i can reproduce the same delay (+30s) every time i use a drive that is slower than 1000 MB/s read.
even on a slow nvme (pcie) i had the same problem.
and im playing with the same group of ppl (all run the game on a ssd) in local squad, not pvp.
using UHD textures, most settings maxed except AA/bloom/DoF.

i first thought it came from cloning the data from the 960 evo (pcie) to the new drive (860 evo nvme), but fresh install didnt fix it, benching the drive showed expected numbers.

 

I have yet to see an NVMe drive at ~500MB/s.... Those are M.2 SATA drives. Every NVMe drive I've seen has had read/write speeds above 1000MB/s. NVMe makes use of PCIe.....
The 960 EVO is an NVMe drive.... The 860 EVO is an M.2 SATA drive....

For me, the difference in boot time, application loading time, etc....is completely non-perceivable. The same goes for loading scenes in games. You're talking about playing games with other people, online.... Something that can be directly impacted by a user's connection. This is where I'm having an issue. You're claiming that a local harddrive is directly affecting, and is the only thing directly affecting, how fast a game being played over the internet loads. There could easily be 1000 different things causing the claimed time difference. Going from 1000MB/s to say, ~550MB/s (barring corrupt drivers, a faulty drive or a faulty controller) isn't going to produce a 30sec delay...

 

yeah, should have said m2, and i meant below 500MB (vs the +1000MB on the nvme)
there are some cheaper ones that claim more speed, but drop down after a few seconds,
and i got better speeds on my 128GB vector 180, so i returned them.

well, nothing else changed, swapping the drive i get the delay, even after i clean installed the game.
drivers/software nothing changed, and even if they would cause this, why only with the slower drives, doesnt make sense.
if a setup/driver is broken, its broken, and doesnt magically change state depending on the drive the game is on.
drivers are from amd, as im using a 570 that doesnt have 3rd party chips for sata/nvme, only the samsung had the 3.1/3.2 installed.
all drives get the numbers i've seen in tests/reviews, and with multiple nvms, swapping slots i could eliminate that as well.

not excluding the game isnt at least partially to blame, as it was released more than 4y and still runs worse than the closed alpha i was part of.