Corsair teases their first PCIe 5.0 SSD, capable of 10,000 MB/s sequential speeds

AlphaX

Posts: 54   +16
Staff
Forward-looking: Corsair recently teased a PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD that can reach sequential speeds of up to 10,000 MB/s. These numbers are giving users a glimpse into the near future of PCIe and NVMe storage as the launch of AMD Ryzen 7000 and Intel Raptor Lake processors loom, equipped with support for these PCIe 5.0 storage drives.

It would be an understatement to say that SSD technology has improved significantly over the last couple of decades. Less than 15 years ago, a 120GB SATA III SSD would have run you close to $350. Nowadays, $350 can potentially get you upwards of 4TB worth of SSD storage, while also performing nearly 12x faster than old SATA SSDs; those speeds are all thanks to the power of PCIe lanes and NVMe ports. In fact, NVMe drives have seen major improvements in even less time.

Just three years ago, the first PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives hit store shelves, boasting blistering speeds of up to 7,000 MB/s. And while these speeds are impressive, Corsair decided to shake things up and break through the four-digit ceiling. Images revealed info regarding Corsair's upcoming MP700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD, which claim the drive can reach speeds of up to 10,000 MB/s in sequential reads, and 9,500 MB/s in sequential writes.

Corsair boldly states to "say goodbye to loading screens," just to really emphasize how fast these drives can be. The chart shows the MP700 having sequential read speeds that are 40% faster than the PCIe 4.0 supported MP600 Pro XT, as well as 180% faster sequential read speeds compared to the PCIe 3.0 supported MP510. To put it into perspective, Corsair's MP510 shows on the graph above was released less than four years ago.

Just think about loading 10GB of data in one second. Twenty years ago, hard drives with anything above 10GB of total storage were hot commodities, but now, you could hypothetically load every bit of data on one of those 10GB hard drives in just one second. However, there needs to be emphasis on the word "hypothetical."

It is worth noting that while sequential speeds for storage devices are amazing numbers to look at, they are not entirely representative of real world speeds that users can expect from day-to-day usage of their drives. That is not to say that Corsair's MP700 will be "slow," but we may still be waiting for real-world speeds that reach those 10GB/s numbers that Corsair is boasting. Regardless, the eventual reviews for this drive, as well as other competitors, will certainly be nothing short of impressive to see once consumers can finally get their hands on PCIe 5.0 SSDs.

It's also fair to assume that these SSDs should be available in the near future, with Ryzen 7000 series processors expected to release in September, and Intel's Raptor Lake expected to follow shortly after in October. With both platform having confirmed PCIe 5.0 support, manufacturers will certainly be ready to make these available as soon as possible, just as we saw with PCIe 4.0 drives just three years ago.

Permalink to story.

 

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,250   +7,599
All that speed is useless if nothing takes advantage of it. The difference between sata and NVMe 3 and NVMe 4 is zilch for most things, and windows explorer still chokes on large numbers of small files just like when it was on a HDD.
Many of us know that M$ has put in so much bloatware over the years that that bloatware just slows down windows. Stupid stuff, like flying files, for instance, and other crap. If M$ did not put in so much bloatware, Windohs would be significantly faster, IMO.

That said, I built my wife a Ryzen 7 3800 on an X570 board with a PCI-e 4.0 Sabrent drive. It cold boots (not one of those Windohs hibernated shutdown boots) in 4-seconds, and that is without UEFI Fast boot and from the time the power button is pushed. Even my old Opteron 1220 running unbloated XP-64 on a SATA SSD does not boot that fast, though it does boot XP substantially faster than an Ivy Bridge Xeon 1650 V2 on a similar SATA SSD boots Windohs 10.

Hardware does make a difference, but unfortunately, we cannot control M$'s "we know how to use your PC better than you do" BS.
 
Last edited:

passwordistaco

Posts: 409   +944
We're well past the point of diminishing returns with NVMe speeds for game load times. I see zero difference in load times between my PCIe 3 and 4 drives because other factors have become the bottleneck. Civ VI games still take so long to load that I've gotten sick of Sean Bean's voice.

Transferring large files will be faster, but as already noted, even fast NVMe drives choke on a multitude of small files. Try copying your Steam games from one drive to another and observe the changes in transfer speed with file size.

We need more IOPS, not more GB/sec.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,517   +2,259
We're well past the point of diminishing returns with NVMe speeds for game load times. I see zero difference in load times between my PCIe 3 and 4 drives because other factors have become the bottleneck. Civ VI games still take so long to load that I've gotten sick of Sean Bean's voice.

Transferring large files will be faster, but as already noted, even fast NVMe drives choke on a multitude of small files. Try copying your Steam games from one drive to another and observe the changes in transfer speed with file size.

We need more IOPS, not more GB/sec.
Yes, this meme that SSDs = no loading screens is dumb. That may be the case for games like Skyrim, or at least the 2011 release version (no idea on the multitude of re-releases since), but games like Sims 3 are basically unaffected by SSDs and take as interminably long to load there as elsewhere. Another example, I booted up GTA Online again recently and the PC version's loading is back to taking forever again; whatever fix the developers cribbed from that modder a couple years ago either broke or has been nullified by the content added since then, as it's bad as it ever was.

It all comes down to complexity and optimization. The more a game falls in the former and the less the developers bother the latter, no SSD is going to fix the loading screen issue. If anything, SSDs just seem to give developers a blank check on eschewing optimization.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 8,250   +7,599
It all comes down to complexity and optimization. The more a game falls in the former and the less the developers bother the latter, no SSD is going to fix the loading screen issue. If anything, SSDs just seem to give developers a blank check on eschewing optimization.
This is the way. ;) Better hard drive means never thinking about optimization when programming while allowing you to do more useless and cutsie stuff. ;)
 

erickmendes

Posts: 703   +333
Yes, this meme that SSDs = no loading screens is dumb. That may be the case for games like Skyrim, or at least the 2011 release version (no idea on the multitude of re-releases since)

Lol... I only ever paid for just one version of Skyrim, as I only play games on pc... It's a Skyrin GOTY version... It's hilarious how many Skyrim version can Bestheda cow out of it...
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,517   +2,259
Lol... I only ever paid for just one version of Skyrim, as I only play games on pc... It's a Skyrin GOTY version... It's hilarious how many Skyrim version can Bestheda cow out of it...
I only ever bought 2011 Skyrim and the DLC. I got the first re-release "free" but never bothered modding it or running it as I have no patience for this purposeful fragmentation.
 

bviktor

Posts: 1,055   +1,525
I'm fairly certain it's still not fast enough to make Diablo II Resurrected load instantly lol.
 

Darth Shiv

Posts: 2,315   +849
We're well past the point of diminishing returns with NVMe speeds for game load times. I see zero difference in load times between my PCIe 3 and 4 drives because other factors have become the bottleneck. Civ VI games still take so long to load that I've gotten sick of Sean Bean's voice.

Transferring large files will be faster, but as already noted, even fast NVMe drives choke on a multitude of small files. Try copying your Steam games from one drive to another and observe the changes in transfer speed with file size.

We need more IOPS, not more GB/sec.
Generally getting a decent amount of IOPS improvement each generation. Those can't really improve the same quantum leaps like sequential speeds can due to architecture.
 

netman

Posts: 838   +380
"It is worth noting that while sequential speeds for storage devices are amazing numbers to look at, they are not entirely representative of real world speeds that users can expect from day-to-day usage of their drives."

For that reason alone I will wait for PCIe 7 or 8 to come out so I can feel the the representation of real world speed...!