AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

The scores on the Light test are not spread as widely as for the more intense ATSB tests, and the SLC caching capabilities of several of the drives come in handy. The X400's average data rate puts it in the middle of the pack, but its good full-drive performance distinguishes it from the other planar TLC drives and makes it tied against several MLC drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The average service time of the X400 is slightly worse than average for this bunch of drives, and it isn't able to score a clear win against any MLC drives on this metric.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The latency outliers above 10ms highlight the planar TLC drives as slower than most MLC drives, but the X400 doesn't do a particularly bad job of keeping latency low.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

Once again the X400 comes in third for overall power efficiency (almost tied for second place), and this time there is a fairly clear gap between it and fourth place.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
Comments Locked

41 Comments

View All Comments

  • Michael Bay - Saturday, May 7, 2016 - link

    There`s 3.1 down there somewhere too.
    I`d like to have the source on your percentages though.
  • Madpacket - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link

    Looks like the 1TB Mushkin Reactor (MKNSSDRE1TB) is still the best value drive to beat. Nice to see TLC drives other than Evo's getting better though.
  • hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    there is also reactor LT, if you want 512GB.
  • justkar4u - Wednesday, May 11, 2016 - link

    @anandtech : Seriously ? You are trying to compare apples to oranges to grapes. You are comparing 3D NAND products with 2D NAND, MLC with TLC type products. Sandisk X400 should be compared with OCZ Trion and Crucial BX series. As you can see X400 is better than Crucial MX in some cases ! Samsung, OCZ vector, crucial MX should not even be there in comparison. With that said, clearly X400 is the winner in TLC segment.
  • nobozos - Thursday, May 12, 2016 - link

    It would sure be nice if you could include a graph in some (all?) of your charts that normalizes for cost. Raw performance is nice, but performance/$ is also very useful.
  • Andre74 - Friday, May 27, 2016 - link

    What's the deal with referring to "Power" both as W·h, and as W (but commenting on efficiency)?

    Efficiency would be energy consumed per byte read, for example. Effectiveness could be bytes read per second. Measuring power usage during operation tells you nothing of either efficiency or effectiveness, unless it's calculated as total energy.
  • BimmerInd - Wednesday, June 1, 2016 - link

    "The Reactor is about $25 cheaper but only has a 3-year warranty and less than half the write endurance rating." Is this because of n-cache technique? MLC, TLC factors - Does it not make Mushkin a little better one?

    Endurance Rating
    Mushkin Enhanced Reactor 1TB - 144TB
    SanDisk X400 1TB - 320TB
    Moreover SanDisk X400 is recommended for OEM unlike Mushkin which is targeted at consumer? Does it make a difference?
  • hojnikb - Thursday, June 23, 2016 - link

    Thats just manufacturer rating. I'm sure unless Mushkin uses the crappiest MLC out there, that it will outlive sandisk x400 in terms of real world endurance.
  • BimmerInd - Friday, June 24, 2016 - link

    It says it uses Micron's NAND same as in Crucial's BX100. So which one should I choose?
  • runasroot - Thursday, January 12, 2017 - link

    I have a question: I know it states that it is 1024gb but is it a true 1024 or is it like something 960gb? I'm cloning a desktop with clonezilla and I need a 1tb ssd that is larger that 960GB to clone from disk to disk. <a href="https://wander.io">Wander</a>

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now