ZHITAI TiPro7000 1TB

This drive is optimised on some performance. Max latency is a problem. In conformance tests, it failed a lot. Stress low power state transition test also failed. When the drive is near to EOL phase, UECC (uncorrectable ECC) error happened in read retention test. 👎

ZhiTai TiPro7000 1TB

Basic Information

In this report, we compare ZhiTai (YMTC’s channel brand) TiPro7000 with 980Pro and SN850 from Samsung and WD respectively. They are all designed for high-end Client market, like gaming PC.

Model Name Firmware Version
TiPro7000 ZHITAI TiPro7000 THREE-BODY 1TB ZTA32F46
980Pro Samsung SSD 980 PRO 1TB 5B2QGXA7
SN850 WDS100T1X0E-00AFY0 614900WD


First of all, let’s check their latency. We believe Latency is overlooked in many SSD evaluations.

Max Write Latency

10 IOPS (ms) 4K 1QD (ms) 512B 1QD 10p filled (ms) 512B 1QD 50% filled (ms) 4K mix RW 90% filled (ms) RW mixed with trim (ms) Trim 50% (ms) Overwrite 50% (ms)
TiPro7000 50.809 255.160 254.445 265.706 248.747 256.812 257.933 250.619
aged1 161.036 260.417 278.812 274.341 286.072 253.195 264.161 801.613
aged2 154.106 254.654 277.669 281.274 280.474 290.754 282.330 293.091
980Pro 8.616 8.461 8.462 14.148 42.767 113.652 58.529 105.543
SN850 0.287 5.812 6.555 6.118 166.909 15.846 13.649 1158.337

Appearently, TiPro7000 has the high max latency problem in most of the test cases. It would give users sluggish experience sometime.


We test write performance after filling 10% and 50% of the whole space respectively.

Sequential Write

10% filled (MB/s) 50% filled (MB/s) 90% filled (MB/s)
TiPro7000 5366.736 2200.192 996.669
aged2 1527.100 1524.846 1524.079
980Pro 3065.800 1730.118 1796.586
SN850 4833.883 1427.258 1649.519

When drive is young, TiPro7000 has much higher performance than 980Pro and SN850. When it is aged (in aged2, P/E>2000), its sequential write speed drops to 1.5GB/s. This performance drop is expected, because the SLC cache may retired at that time.

When the drive is highly utilized (90% filled), TiPro7000’s sequential write speed drops significantly to less than 1GB/s.

From the diagram below, we can find the same problem of Lenovo Y9000: time 0 performance is very low. The drive seems be kicked off later than others.


SLC cache retirement

TiPro7000 use the whole capacity as SLC cache. When the drive is young, and utilized space is low, it gives user the highest performance. But when space is occupied, especially when 90% space filled, we can notice a big performance drop in the above test. Furthermore, when the drive is written extensively (e.g. > 2000 P/E used), we can also find that almost the whole SLC cache is retired, and we cannot observe SLC performance at all in that the test diagram below.


Random Write

TiPro7000’s random write performance is not the best, but it is good enough.

10% filled (K IOPS) 50% filled (K IOPS) 90% filled (K IOPS)
TiPro7000 318.165 224.064 213.358
980Pro 386.622 629.517 544.405
SN850 280.283 250.407 158.988


Except for read and write, Trim is also a common command in nowadays’ OS. We test its performance by trim half LBA space.

TiPro7000 has very good Trim performance, on both speed and Latency. And the write speed can gain the benefit from Trim, the sequential write performance is increased more than 100% after triming half LBA space.

IOPS (K) Average Latency (ms) performance before trim (MB/s) performance after trim (MB/s)
TiPro7000 11.628 1.329 1609.822 3414.978
980Pro 1.676 9.535 2172.154 2938.130
SN850 4.184 3.804 2029.665 3225.354


If we use SSD in laptop, the power consumption is also a key consideration.

basic data

We list TMT1/2 setting below. TiPro7000’s TMT1/TMT2 setting is much higher than imagination, but I don’t think they use automotive-grade NAND.

TMT1/degreeC TMT2/degreeC
TiPro7000 99 109
980Pro 81 82
SN850 80 82

Low Power State

PS4 measured power (mW) PS4 exit duration (us) PS3 measured power (mW) PS3 exit duration (us)
TiPro7000 9.6 44225.1 93.9 8194.0
980Pro 2043.0 408.1 2044.1 417.2
SN850 1333.3 164.7 1332.1 164.1

TiPro7000 has the reasonable low power consumption of PS4 and PS3. And its exit duration is well controlled. However, in our stress low power state transition test (saw_diagram.py), TiPro7000 failed to exit from PS3 and the drive is lost!

Active Power Consumption

Sequential Write

We compare the performance and power consumption of TiPro7000 and SN850 in sequential write test below.



Both TiPro7000 and SN850 use the full capacity as SLC cache, so their SLC performance can last longer, around 60-second. Though their max power consumption are similar, SN850’s temperature is much higher. So SN850 starts thermal throttling earlier even when SLC cache is not used up, and TiPro7000 has a much better performance consistency in the whole duration of the test.

Sequential Read

TiPro7000 has a better sequential read performance due to lower power consumption and temperature. But we can notice the time-0 performance problem again.




Data Retention

In our whole test process, we will write each DUT to its EOL (about 3000 P/E cycle for TLC SSD), then write the whole drive and keep them without power at the room temperature for 2 month. After that, we read the whole drive and verify its data integrity. Here is the test result.

Data Units Written (1000LBA) read speed 0 (MB/s) read speed 2 (MB/s)
TiPro7000 4735478410 5928 UECC
980Pro 5542172462 6177 6345
SN850 7506783940 4941 188

‘read speed 0’ is captured right after the data was written, and ‘read speed 0’ is captured 2-month later. SN850 was written by much more data intentionally. We check the result of ‘read speed 2’.

TiPro7000 reports many UECC data, so its test fails. 980Pro test passes with normal speed, even though it has more data written than TiPro7000. Due to the greater data written quantity, SN850 suffers from NAND raw data quality issue, but it still can pass the test. Even though the performance is ultra-low (188MB/s), all data can be recovered finally.

UECC simply means data lost.