Hi Hilbert, you wanted to know where things are broken... Here is another article that doesnt link to its thread. I clicked the link at the top of the page that says (0 comments) and it takes me here https://www.guru3d.com/articles-summary/acer-predator-gm7000-2tb-nvme-pcie-4-ssd-review.html fyi

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/acer-predator-gm7000-2tb-nvme-pcie-4-ssd-review,14.html Sadly the 4K performance of this new drive isnt so good at 4K transfers which is what matters for OS use. My Sabrent TLC 1TB pcie gen 3 is a lot faster at most things, slightly slower at Q1T1 reads. ie The Sabrent tests were taken on my old 6700K system, they will no doubt be a bit faster on a newer system: GM7000 vs Sabrent TLC 1TB 4KB Q32T1 Read 644.15 vs 957.3 Write 488.38 vs 846.0 4K Q1T1 Read 74.61 vs 67.00 Write 251.36 vs 389.7 ps also take care when comparing results. Many results show Q32T1 figures, others show Q32T16. They are not comparable.

What's the prohibiting factor for the manufacturers to not just increase the cache size? Is it physical space, cost, lack of demand? Would doubling the cache allow writes up to 66% of the disk before dropping off? Sorry for the dumb questions, but I'm just not sure why the cache can't be increased if that's what all drives seem to suffer from.

Mufflore:

Hi Hilbert, you wanted to know where things are broken... Here is another article that doesnt link to its thread. I clicked the link at the top of the page that says (0 comments) and it takes me here https://www.guru3d.com/articles-summary/acer-predator-gm7000-2tb-nvme-pcie-4-ssd-review.html fyi

Yeah, that's expected behavior. That's a link page that will display comments.. However, when you looked, there were not any comments just yet. I guess you expect to get dropped directly into the forums. Check the link again, you will see the comments.