AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance. For full details of this test, please refer to this article.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The SX930 doesn't perform too well in our The Destroyer trace. If this was a value-oriented drive, I would say the performance is decent, but any drive that is focusing on the higher-end segment should outperform the BX100 and 850 EVO to have any chance of being competitive. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The number of high latency IOs isn't particularly large, but again the SX930 is only competitive against the value drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Power consumption is fairly average for the 480GB model, but the 240GB consumes substantially more due to its lower performance.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • dada121 - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    First to take the throne, Reply
  • Refuge - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    can't wait for NVMe to give us some space to stretch our legs again! :) Reply
  • Stochastic - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Just how much of an impact are NVMe drives expected to have on light tasks, e.g. boot times, application and game load times, etc. Could the average consumer benefit from a move to ultra high performance NVMe drives, or are the benefits limited to power users? Reply
  • Refuge - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    It is definitely more limited to power users. Especially until NVMe support and drives go down in costs. Right now it is enterprise or enthusiast only.

    But that is just par for the course. Software will be developed to use the extra horsepower one day, but not until after that level of performance is much more common place.

    SATA6 SSD's will be perfect for regular consumers for years to come. But I see in a couple years especially with how graphics resolutions are going through the roof that Gamers will start finding a use for the extra bandwidth once 4k gaming is mainstream and texture packs start to explode like they did back in the 90's.

    Remember when a 16g HDD running at 5400 RPM was the SHIT!?
    Reply
  • TelstarTOS - Tuesday, July 21, 2015 - link

    Yeah, in those times i had SCSI :) Reply
  • Adding-Color - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    They could be useful for video editing and other stuff that profits from fast sequential reads/writes.
    For games not so much. Most games appear to be CPU limited not SSD disk limited (for load times, when you are using a SSD) and a recent review (forgot the link) showed almost no load times improvement using a 2GB/s NVME Pcie SSD compared to a 500MB/s SATA SSD.

    From a power and and efficiency standpoint NVME should have less latency and less lower consumption.
    Reply
  • Impulses - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Content creation tasks, even with photos instead of video, can already benefit greatly from NVMe or M2/PCI-E in general... I'm getting a smaller M2 Samsung drive as soon as I have a mobo that supports it (Skylake?), not sure I see myself going for a large one until prices drop well under $1/GB tho, and that'll take a while.

    For a power user I think an M2/PCI-E SSD for OS/apps/scratch space + large SATA SSD drive/array for data will soon supplant the SATA SSD + HDD setups... But M2/PCI-E will be like the Raptors of the SSD world.
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Stochastic, you won't find the answer here, since AT doesn't do real world SSD testing. Reply
  • benzosaurus - Sunday, July 19, 2015 - link

    Half of their benchmarks are literally recordings of the writes generated by doing real world things. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, July 19, 2015 - link

    Irrelevant. Stochastic asked how boot times and app load times compare. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now