G.Skill Phoenix Blade (480GB) PCIe SSD Review
by Kristian Vättö on December 12, 2014 9:02 AM ESTFinal Words
The Phoenix Blade is a beast in performance. It's in the top two of all the client-level SSDs that we have ever tested and trades blows with Samsung's XP941 PCIe SSD (although I must say here that most of the client drives we have tested are SATA based, so the Phoenix Blade with its PCIe 2.0 x8 interface and four SF-2282 controllers in RAID 0 is obviously at an advantage). However, that doesn't necessarily dictate the drive's performance, especially outside synthetic benchmarks, because as we learned in the RevoDrive 350 review, a PCIe SSD isn't always faster than a good SATA 6Gbps SSD.
Comparing the RevoDrive 350 to the Phoenix Blade is actually very interesting: while the two share the same core (4x SF-2282), the Phoenix Blade is considerably faster in all our benchmarks. It's hard to point at the SBC controller given how little we know and the lack of information available, but most likely the RAID controller and its firmware are to thank for the performance as the SF-2282 controller and firmware are essentially the same for all vendors. I have to say I'm impressed with what G.Skill has been able to put out with its first ever PCIe SSD because OCZ has a long history of building PCIe designs.
| Price Comparison (12/11/2014) | |
| 480/512GB | |
| G.Skill Phoenix Blade | $700 |
| OCZ RevoDrive 350 | $795 |
| Samsung XP941 | $510 |
Better yet, the price is nearly $100 lower than what the RevoDrive 350 sells for, but on the other hand that's still almost $200 more than the 512GB XP941. As a result the XP941 will remain as my recommentation for users that have compatible setups (PCIe M.2 and boot support for the XP941) because I'd say it's slightly better performance wise for typical client workloads and at $200 less there is just no reason to choose the Phoenix Blade over the XP941, except for compatibility.
This is ultimately the niche for the Phoenix Blade. Since XP941 boot support is mostly limited to motherboards with the Z97 chipset, there is a market for users with older motherboards where the XP941 is simply not an option due to the lack of boot support. The Phoenix Blade features legacy drivers that load before the BIOS, so it can be selected as the boot device in practically any motherboard. As such it's currently the best option for people who don't have an Z97 system but want fast 'all-in-one' PCIe SSD storage. (Another option would be a PCIe RAID card with SATA 6Gbps SSDs in RAID 0, but that requires more set up and management.) It comes at a cost, but the users who need/want a drive with such high performance and fall into the non-Z97 niche shouldn't find the price overwhelming.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Havor - Sunday, December 14, 2014 - link
What really sucks is that Intel continues attaching a PCH to the host processor through a four-lane DMI 2.0 connection on even the X99. You only get 2 GB/s of bi-directional throughput.So 3 disk R0 or 4 disk R5 is all it takes to saturate the DMI connection between chipset and CPU, even do you got 10x SATA3 connectors.
On the moment only solutions are M.2, PCIe to have a faster storage solution.
And for the desktop, only M.2 with native PCIe 3.x 4x will be able to to deliverer cost affectedly solutions, one's they finally have good SSD controllers developed.
alacard - Sunday, December 14, 2014 - link
You're preaching to the quire on that one. 2GB per second (actually only 1800MB/s after overhead) divided between 10 SATA ports, 14 USB (6 3.0) ports, Gigabit LAN, and 8 PCI express lanes, is an absolute joke.TheWrongChristian - Monday, December 15, 2014 - link
What you're missing is that while an SSD at peak speed can saturate a SATA 3 link, and 3 such drives can saturate 2GB/s DMI connection, even the best SSDs can rarely reach such speeds with normal workloads.Random (especially low queue depth 4K random) workloads tend to be limited to much lower speeds, and random IO is much more representative of typical workloads. Sequential workloads are usually bulk file copy operations, and how often do you do that?
So, given your 10x SATA 3 connectors, what workload do you possibly envisage that would require that combined bandwidth? And benchmark dick swinging doesn't count.
personne - Sunday, December 14, 2014 - link
My tasks are varied but they often involve opening large data sets and importing them into an inverted index store, at the same time running many process agents on the incoming data as well as visualizing it. This host is also used for virtualization. Programs loading faster is the least of my concerns.AllanMoore - Saturday, December 13, 2014 - link
Well you could see the blistering speed on 480Gb comparing to 240Gb version, see the table: http://picoolio.net/image/e4OEzioAs - Saturday, December 13, 2014 - link
I know RAID 0 (especially with 4 drives) theoretically would give high performance but is it really worth the data risks? I do question some laptop manufacturers or PC OEM to actually build a RAID 0 with SSDs for potential customers, it's just not a good practice imo.personne - Monday, December 15, 2014 - link
RAM is much more volatile than flash or spinning storage yet it has its place. SSDs are in a sense always RAID array since many chips are used. And it's been posted that the failure rate of a good SSD is much less than a HDD, multiple SSDs are still less than a single HDD. And one should always have good backups regardless. So if the speed is worth it it's not at at all unreasonable.Symbolik - Sunday, December 14, 2014 - link
I have 3x Kingston HyperX 240gb in Raid 0, I have 4 of them, but 3 maxes out my AMDraid gains, it is significant over 2 at around 1000 x 1100 r/w (ATTO diskbench). I have tried 4, the gain was minimal. To get further gains with the 4th, I'd probably need to put in an actual RAID card. I know it's not intel, but it is sandforce.Dug - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
You say - "As a result the XP941 will remain as my recommentation for users that have compatible setups (PCIe M.2 and boot support for the XP941) because I'd say it's slightly better performance wise and at $200 less there is just no reason to choose the Phoenix Blade over the XP941, except for compatibility"I'm curious, what are you using to determine the XP941 has slightly better performance? It just seems to me most of the benchmarks favor the Phoenix Blade.
Kristian Vättö - Friday, December 12, 2014 - link
It's the 2011 Heavy Workload in particular where the XP941 performs considerably better than the Phoenix Blade, whereas in 2013 and 2011 Light suites the difference between the two is quite small. The XP941 also has better low QD random performance, which typically important for desktop workloads.