If you ever search for the best Gen 5.0 NVMe SSD, you will surely see the Crucial T705 and T700 as the possible contenders. Both of these drives are in the high-end NVMe category and compete well in the industry. But if you are confused between the two, I am here to clear it out for you.
I have already compared the Crucial T705 with Samsung’s top Gen 5.0 drive, i.e., 9100 Pro. But today, we’ll compare the T700 Gen 5.0 NVMe to the newer one, the T705.
Both drives use the same Phison E26 controller and B58R FortisFlash NAND from Micron. But the performance difference is pretty huge. Crucial T700 can reach 12 GB/s sequential read and 11 GB/s sequential write speed. The random read and write IOPS can go up to 1500 K. On the other hand, the T705 can offer the maximum sequential read speed of 14,100 MB/s and write speed of 12,600 MB/s. The maximum random read IOPS are 1500K, but the random write IOPS are higher at 1800K.
The T705 is the better one in terms of performance and is suitable for heavy workloads. However, the T700 can save you some money if the best Gen 5.0 performance isn’t your priority. The T700 will also run cooler than the T705. There are reasons to pick both of the drives in different situations, and we are going to discuss everything in detail in this article. So, let’s get started.
Theoretical Specifications
| Specification | Crucial T700 | Crucial T705 |
|---|---|---|
| PCIe Generation/NVMe Version | PCIe Gen 5.0 x4/ NVMe 2.0 | PCIe Gen 5.0 x4/ NVMe 2.0 |
| Release Date | 2023 | Feb 20th, 2024 |
| Capacities | 1TB, 2TB, 4TB | 1TB, 2TB, 4TB |
| Sequential Read Speed | 1TB: 11,500 MB/s 2TB: 12,000 MB/s 4TB: 12,000 MB/s | 1TB: 13,600 MB/s 2TB: 14,500 MB/s 4TB: 14,100 MB/s |
| Sequential Write Speed | 1TB: 9,500 MB/s 2TB: 11,000 MB/s 4TB: 11,000 MB/s | 1TB: 10,200 MB/s 2TB: 12,700 MB/s 4TB: 12,600 MB/s |
| Random Read Speed | 1TB: 1,200 IOPS 2TB: 1,500K IOPS 4TB: 1,500K IOPS | 1TB: 1,400K IOPS 2TB: 1,550K IOPS 4TB: 1,500K IOPS |
| Random Write Speed | 1TB: 1,500 IOPS 2TB: 1,200K IOPS 4TB: 1,500K IOPS | 1TB: 1,750K IOPS 2TB: 1,550K IOPS 4TB: 1,500K IOPS |
| NAND Flash | Micron’s B58R FortisFlash TLC | Micron’s B58R FortisFlash TLC |
| DRAM | Yes | Yes |
| Controller | Phison E26 | Phison E26 |
The 1TB variant of the T700 is the slowest among the three, with 11,500 MB/s sequential read and 9,500 MB/s sequential write speed. However, these are sequential numbers to have an idea of what these drives are designed for. Other specifications like the interface, protocol, and capacities are the same. But we’ll come to the detailed specifications later in the article.
Benchmark Scores
The benchmark scores are gathered from trusted third-party sources. They are mainly from Tom’s Hardware, and links to them are provided at the end of the article. The results are for the 2TB (non-heatsink) variants of both drives.
PCMark 10 (Full Drive Benchmark)
PCMark 10 Full Drive Benchmark takes the SSDs through a series of real-world tests to examine their capabilities as the primary OS drive. There is a quick benchmark as well with simple tests aiming to check SSDs’ capabilities as a secondary drive. We are comparing the Full drive benchmark. The results that we get are the PCMark 10 score, bandwidth, and latency. You can learn more about the PCMark 10 benchmark here.
The Crucial T705 got 1158 more PCMark 10 points compared to the T700. If we look at the bandwidth, the T705 offered 1020 MB/s, which is around 17% higher than the T700’s 856 MB/s. Crucial T705 has significantly lower latency, i.e., 25 microseconds, compared to T700’s 31 microseconds. So, overall, we can say that the T705 will offer substantially better performance than the T700.
3DMark Storage Test
3DMark Storage Test is a full-fledged program to test a drive’s gaming and gaming-related activities capabilities. It takes the drives through multiple tests, including game loading, saving, installing, recording, and streaming etc. A higher 3DMark benchmark score means a better gaming performance from the drive. Bandwidth means how much data can move in a given time. Higher bandwidth means better performance in file loading and handling multitasking. Latency simply means the time delay between a request for data and the start of data transfer. It is responsible for the responsiveness of the drive.
The Crucial T705 gave a 3DMark score of 6739 while the T700 has around 20% lower score, i.e., 5604. The bandwidth of T705 is around 17% higher than that of T700. The latency in Crucial T705 is 26 microseconds, while the T700 has 6 microseconds higher, i.e., 32. Overall, you can expect better gaming performance from the Crucial T705 than the T700.
CrystalDiskMark Peak Sequential Read/Write Speed
The biggest difference in the CDM sequential test are in the 1MB Read at Queue Depth of 8. The Crucial T705 has around 13% higher read score in this parameter. The differences are minimal when we compare the 1MB Read/Write at QD1 and 1MB Write at QD8. So, overall, the winner is the Crucial T705 but by tiny margins.
CrystalDiskMark Peak Random IOPS
In the random read/write IOPS results, the difference are bigger as compared to the sequential benchmark scores.
File Read and Write Speed Comparison
Power Consumption and Efficiency
Write speed after SLC exhaustion
The 2TB variant of the Crucial T700 comes with approx. 320GB of dynamic SLC write cache while the T705 has approximately 220 GB of it. The theoretical raw write speed after SLC exhaustion in T700 is around 3600MB/s and 4000 MB/s in T705. In the benchmarks like this one, the 2TB T705 drops to around 4000 MB/s after the SLC is exhausted after around 20 seconds of burst write load. Then after around 400 seconds, it drops below 2000 MB/s and then recovers to 4000MB/s at around 650 seconds.
The T700 drops below 4000 MB/s at around 3800 MB/s after almost the same time frame. However, it sustained at this speed for around 470 seconds and then recovered at around the same time i.e. 650 seconds. So, we can say that the SLC performs as it is advertised.
Talking about the speed after exhaustion, the same tests showed that the T705 gave around 4029 MB/s steady state write performance after 15 minutes of write load on 1 MiB blocks at QD32. The T700 averaged at around 3605.
Overall, the write speed after exhaustion isn’t that much different, but the T705 definitely has an edge when it comes to the sustained write speed. But, because of its biggest SLC cache, the T700 can handle the burst data write loads more effectively.
Thermals
The heatsink version of T705 has a generally average of between 60 to 70°C in most of the benchmarks. The T700 hardly reached the 60-degree mark and generally stayed cooler than the T705. However, during Tom’s Hardware testing, the controller in the T700 reached around 87 degrees and then throttled under the rigorous and continuous write load.
We can say that the T705 runs cooler, and it is obvious by looking at the power consumption numbers above. The T705 has offered a better MB/s per watt while a lower maximum and average power consumption numbers.
Tech Specs
| Specification | Crucial T705 | Crucial T700 |
|---|---|---|
| Controller | Phison’s PS5026-E26 | Phison’s PS5026-E26 |
| Controller Architecture | ARM 32-bit Cortex-R5 + AndesCore 32-bit N25F RISC-V (5-Core) | ARM 32-bit Cortex-R5 + AndesCore 32-bit N25F RISC-V(5-Core) |
| DRAM Specifications | Micron’s LPDDR4 DRAM 1TB: 1×1024 MB 2TB: 1×2048 MB 4TB: 1x 4096 MB | Micron’s LPDDR4 DRAM 1TB: 1× 2048 MB 2TB: 1×2048 MB 4TB: 2x 4096 MB |
| SLC Write Cache | 1TB: approx. 110 GB (dynamic only) 2TB: approx. 220 GB (dynamic only) 4TB: approx. 440 GB (dynamic only) | 1TB: – 2TB: approx. 320 GB (dynamic only) 3TB: – |
| NAND Flash | Micron’s B58R FortisFlash TLC | Micron’s B58R FortisFlash TLC |
| Topology | 232-Layers | 232-Layers |
| NAND speed | 2400 MT/s | 2400 MT/s |
| Read Time (tR)/Program Time (tProg) | 61 µs/600 µs | 61 µs/600 µs |
| Die Read Speed | 1574 MB/s | 1574 MB/s |
| Die Write Speed | 160 MB/s | 160 MB/s |
| Encryption | AES-256, TCG Opal | AES-256, TCG Opal |
| Power Loss Protection | No | No |
| SMART/TRIM/PS5 Support | Yes/Yes/Yes | Yes/Yes/Yes |
Most of the technical specifications in both drives are almost similar because the same controller and NAND flash are used. The difference is mainly in the SLC write cache and DRAM buffer. Surprisingly, the T700 has better things to offer here. However, the performance is still better with the T705. This is why we should never underestimate the power of software refinement and firmware optimization in storage.
TBW, DWPD, MTBF, and Warranty
| Specificiation | Crucial T705 | Crucial T700 |
|---|---|---|
| TBW (Terabytes Written) | 1TB: 600 TBW 2TB: 1200 TBW 4TB: 2400 TBW | 1TB: 600 TBW 2TB: 1200 TBW 4TB: 2400 TBW |
| DWPD (Drive Writes per Day) | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) | 1.5 Million Hours | – |
| Warranty | 5 Years Limited | 5 Years Limited |
Everything here, including warranty, MTBF, and TBW, is the same again. Crucial T700’s datasheet has nothing to say about its MTBF, but T705’s MTBF is confirmed to be 1.5 million hours.
Price Difference
The T700 is generally cheaper in both online and offline markets but so it’ll surely save some money for you. However, during sales or on some special occasions, you can find the T705 to be cheaper or at the same price as the T700. I would suggest checking and comparing the real-time prices before you make your purchase.
Which one should you choose: Crucial T705 or T700?
In terms of synthetic and real-world benchmarks, the T705 is surely going to benefit you in many ways. But, is that little margin really worth it for the extra money that you pay? That you’ll have to decide. I would consider the T700 if I were saving 20 or 30 bucks.
However, the price difference is generally isn’t that huge. So, if I am getting the 1TB T705 for 10 bucks more than the T700, it is worth spending that money, but not more than that.
Also, the real-world performance difference isn’t going to be that big in either of the drives. For most users, the extra performance that the T705 comes with is just overkill. However, if you are an ultimate performance enthusiast, gamer, or someone in need of the best of the best, you should go for the T705 instead of the T700.
Benchmarks and Resources
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ssds/crucial-t705-2tb-ssd-review/2
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-t700-ssd-review