Random Read/Write Speed

The four corners of SSD performance are as follows: random read, random write, sequential read and sequential write speed. Random accesses are generally small in size, while sequential accesses tend to be larger and thus we have the four Iometer tests we use in all of our reviews. Our first test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time. We use both standard pseudo randomly generated data for each write as well as fully random data to show you both the maximum and minimum performance offered by SandForce based drives in these tests. The average performance of SF drives will likely be somewhere in between the two values for each drive you see in the graphs. For an understanding of why this matters, read our original SandForce article.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Read (4K Aligned)

Random read performance has never been a strength of SandForce as even Intel SSD 320 outperforms most SandForce based SSDs. As the graph shows, the SX900 is on-par with other 120/128GB SandForce drives.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (4K Aligned) - 8GB LBA Space

4KB random write performance is no different from other SandForce drives. Only Intel SSD 520 and Corsair Force 3 are noticeably faster, while others fall in the same 215-230MB/s range.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (8GB LBA Space QD=32)

Increasing the queue depth to 32 doesn't change the story. While the SX900 is the slowest SandForce drive in this test, it's less than 5% slower than the majority of SF-2281 drives.

Sequential Read/Write Speed

To measure sequential performance I ran a 1 minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read (4K Aligned)

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write (4K Aligned)

Both sequential read and write speeds are almost the same for all SandForce SF-2200 series SSDs and the SX900 is no exception. This isn't a surprise given that the firmware is essentially the same in all SandForce SSDs, with the exception of the Intel 520 series.

Introduction to ADATA XPG SX900 AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Performance
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • XZerg - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    But at least include Mushkin in the benches, after all that's the cheapest SSD out there. This would give a better picture of $/performance. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    We don't have any Mushkin drives in our labs. I have asked Mushkin for a review sample but I have yet to receive a reply. Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, June 11, 2012 - link

    I hate to say it but "good !" - that's what keeps their asynchonus prices so low. :-) Reply
  • Belard - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    Considering the history and being a favorite, I think the Intel X25-M G2 120GB should be included in the benchmarks. So many of us can track the improvements and see if its a good time to upgrade or not.

    The G2 still does pretty good for its slow-interface, since its not a SF drive.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    Bench also works :-)

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/605?vs=126
    Reply
  • Belard - Monday, June 11, 2012 - link

    Thanks... Its still easy to forget that function is on the website. Reply
  • Assimilator87 - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    There's no point in including more than two, MAYBE three SandForce drives. One with synchronous NAND, one with asynchronous, and the Intel cuz it has a different firmware. They're all the same hardware with a different sticker. Reply
  • iceman98343 - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    when are you going to rereview vertex 4? new fw was released. Reply
  • UltraTech79 - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    Where are you guys getting these numbers? One place? The suggested retail price? The 256GB M4 is going for $0.70 per GB at amazon. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Friday, June 08, 2012 - link

    We used DynamiteDeals to hunt for best deals. However, the table is a bit outdated (the prices are from May 22nd). I know it should be more up-to-date, but the problem is that DynamiteDeals does not work for me as it's tied to one's IP address. Since I'm located in Finland, it only finds Finnish stores (well, there is only one it finds...). Jarred made the pricing table but in the end, Anand was the one who posted this article (it's been ready for ages, just needed Anand's final look at it). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now