AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The 1TB VX500 delivers a slightly better average data rate than the Vector 180, but is still significantly slower than Samsung's 850 EVO, let alone the 850 Pro. The smaller two capacities of the VX500 are slower than the Vector 180, with the 256GB VX500 about 20% slower than the 240GB Vector 180.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The average service time of the VX500 is relatively poor for an MLC drive, but still significantly better than planar TLC drives. The Vector 180 had top-notch latency with little dependence on capacity.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The number of latency outliers above the 10ms threshold ranks the VX500 below almost all MLC drives. The Crucial MX200 also performed poorly here; in both cases it is likely due to the use of an SLC cache (which is relatively rare for MLC drives) that is swamped by this long-duration test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

At the 100ms threshold the VX500 has a typical number of latency outliers for a budget MLC drive, but this is a significant step back from what the Vector 180 could do.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

In spite of mediocre performance, the VX500 has great energy efficiency that is competitive with 3D NAND and close to the record set by the Crucial BX100.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link

    LOL $337? You can get 1TB and 1 500GB Crucial MX500 with just a few more bucks.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link

    MX300

    2016, still no edit button, GG.
  • sonicmerlin - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link

    Feels like SSD prices/GB have been pretty stagnant the last couple years.
  • rhysiam - Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - link

    They have dropped significantly. Check out the price table from the 850EVO launch review which was less than two years ago. Cheapest $/GB drive was the 240GB ARC 100 @ 42c/GB. That table in this article has a bunch of drives cheaper than that, and it's mid-range SATA drives. There are entry level 480GB drives going today that are only $10 more than the budget 240GB drives from less than two years ago.

    I'd call that pretty reasonable progress on the $/GB front.
  • rhysiam - Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - link

    Here's the table from the 850EVO launch review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850...
  • sonicmerlin - Wednesday, September 14, 2016 - link

    The EVO was always higher priced. Look at the average prices:

    https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/internal-har...

    They've come down, but not as dramatically as before. I remember well over a year ago being able to buy a SDD for 25 cents/GB on a good deal, and now it's about 20 cents/GB. Perhaps it's because of the slow transition to 3D NAND, but I'm hoping the pace picks up again.
  • Hiniberus - Wednesday, September 21, 2016 - link

    When will these go on sale? I'm curious about them but I can't find any store that has them in stock!
  • superunknown98 - Friday, September 23, 2016 - link

    I don't really understand the final words giving the drive praise. It didn't seem to perform that much better compared other drives, including it's predecessor. Even in ATSB-Destroyer it had middling performance with good power consumption.
  • cargostud - Thursday, February 2, 2017 - link

    I had a VTR1-25SAT3-512G with a 5 year Warranty. It has 4k Random Write: 95K IOPS; 4k Random Read: 100K IOPS according to the specs. It died a few weeks ago and it is being replaced with a VX500. It has a spec of 4k Random Write: 64K IOPS; 4k Random Read: 92K IOPS. The replacement drive is slower than the one I had before. Wouldn't a more fair replacement be a VT180? 4k Random Write: 90K IOPS; 4k Random Read: 90K IOPS

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now