Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB Review

June 26, 2014 | 12:23

Tags: #nand #ssd

Companies: #toshiba

CrystalDiskMark Benchmark Results

Website: CrystalDiskMark

CrystalDiskMark is similar to AS SSD in its use of incompressible data files, although it does use a different data pattern. We report the read and write results of the sequential and 4KB random tests

Sequential Performance


CrystalDiskMark 1,000MB

Incompressible Data, 1,000MB Sequential Read

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 250GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB
  • OCZ Vector 150 240GB
  • Crucial M550 512GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • Crucial MX100 512GB
  • OCZ Vertex 450 256GB
  • Intel SSD 730 240GB
    • 872
    • 544
    • 541
    • 539
    • 537
    • 530
    • 526
    • 524
    • 523
    • 517
    • 513
    • 478
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Read Speed

CrystalDiskMark 1,000MB

Incompressible Data, 1,000MB Sequential Write

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 250GB
  • OCZ Vertex 450 256GB
  • OCZ Vector 150 240GB
  • Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB
  • Crucial M550 512GB
  • Crucial MX100 512GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • Intel SSD 730 240GB
    • 1060
    • 525
    • 525
    • 520
    • 518
    • 517
    • 510
    • 503
    • 502
    • 456
    • 448
    • 288
0
250
500
750
1000
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Write Speed

Random Performance


CrystalDiskMark 1,000MB

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Read, Single QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 250GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Intel SSD 730 240GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • Crucial MX100 512GB
  • Crucial M550 512GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB
  • OCZ Vector 150 240GB
  • Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB
  • OCZ Vertex 450 256GB
    • 76.67
    • 44.44
    • 41.23
    • 38.61
    • 37.80
    • 36.56
    • 33.18
    • 32.67
    • 30.72
    • 26.83
    • 24.66
    • 24.64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Read Speed

CrystalDiskMark 1,000MB

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Write, Single QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • OCZ Vector 150 240GB
  • OCZ Vertex 450 256GB
  • Crucial MX100 512GB
  • Crucial M550 512GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 250GB
  • Intel SSD 730 240GB
  • Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB
  • Corsair Neutron 240GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
    • 337.30
    • 131.90
    • 129.60
    • 128.70
    • 128.30
    • 120.10
    • 119.70
    • 119.40
    • 118.20
    • 114.90
    • 110.50
    • 109.80
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Write Speed

CrystalDiskMark 1,000MB

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Read, 32 QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Crucial M550 512GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 250GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB
  • Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB
  • Intel SSD 730 240GB
  • OCZ Vector 150 240GB
  • OCZ Vertex 450 256GB
  • Crucial MX100 512GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
    • 407
    • 406
    • 405
    • 405
    • 401
    • 391
    • 387
    • 372
    • 361
    • 348
    • 339
    • 336
0
100
200
300
400
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Read Speed

CrystalDiskMark 1,000MB

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Write, 32 QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • OCZ Vector 150 240GB
  • OCZ Vertex 450 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Crucial M550 512GB
  • Crucial MX100 512GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 250GB
  • Intel SSD 730 240GB
  • Toshiba HG6 SSD 512GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
    • 700
    • 374
    • 372
    • 372
    • 371
    • 367
    • 366
    • 346
    • 312
    • 287
    • 262
    • 180
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Write Speed

Discuss this in the forums

Posted by andrew8200m - Thu Jun 26 2014 11:34

If we leave the whole synthetic scene and look at what the drive can provide in real world terms its actually very fast indeed. Only PCmark really gives you any glimpse of an idea of this as everything else only really shows what a drive can do as a maximum level. Thats no different to Ken blocks Fiesta topping out at 130mph but getting there in 6 seconds vs a standard fiestsa ST topping out at 140mph (ie faster) but taking the best part of 3 weeks to do it..

They are very well made drives thats for sure but performance is faster than perhaps synthetic tests would suggest.

Posted by Gareth Halfacree - Thu Jun 26 2014 12:44

Combatus
Following Toshiba's acquisition of OCZ, can it reign in [...]
Rein.

Posted by Shirty - Thu Jun 26 2014 12:59

Rayne.

On topic, if I were currently in the market for half a terabyte of bargaintastic I'd go for the Toshiba Q Series 512GB drive.

You'll save over £120 for an intangible loss of performance in most applications. It was even cheaper t'other day.

Posted by Deders - Thu Jun 26 2014 13:02

Am wondering if manufacturers are being deliberately vague about the Nand in case they need to swap it out with another brand further down the line.
null
YouTube logo
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review

October 14 2021 | 15:04

In line with recent changes to data protection legislation in the UK and Europe we would like to direct you to our updated Privacy Policy here.