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). We perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Read

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (QD=32)

Random speeds show a small decrease in performance over the other OCZ drives, which is due to the combination of the slower M10 controller and A19nm NAND.

Sequential Read/Write Speed

To measure sequential performance we run 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

In sequential performance the ARC 100 seems to be more optimized for read performance as that is up compared to the Vector 150 and Vertex 460, but in turn the write speed has decreased slightly.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Read/Write Performance

The AS-SSD sequential benchmark uses incompressible data for all of its transfers. The result is a pretty big reduction in sequential write speed on SandForce based controllers, but most other controllers are unaffected.

Incompressible Sequential Read Performance

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance

AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 Performance vs. Transfer Size
Comments Locked

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anato - Thursday, August 28, 2014 - link

    Those pull down menus are pain to use. Please use old buttons instead. Thanks!
  • MHz Tweaker - Sunday, August 31, 2014 - link

    Of the 12 SSD's I have purchased in the last 5 years.....

    qty 4 Vertex 2's
    qty 1 HyperX 3K
    qty 2 Vertex 4's
    qty 3 Samsung EVO's
    qty 2 Samsung 840 Pro's

    I have had 2 failures, both OCZ drives (one Vertex 2 and one Vertex 4)
    The Vertex 2 died within a few months of purchase
    The Vertex 4 died in just under a year

    My top choice would be Samsung then 2nd Crucial and maybe another HyperX 3K drive 3rd
  • danwat1234 - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link

    In the article, I don't really see how the Arc 100 , Vector 150, Vertex 460 isn't OK for the laptop crowd. It is only taking half a watt at idle, less than a typical 5400RPM laptop drive of about 1 watt. It is unfortunate DIPM isn't supported but no big deal.

    In the article, doesn't the Arc 100, Vector 150 and Vertex 460 all use the same 19nm flash, but you say the Arc 100 uses slower flash? I know the controller in the Vertex460 and Arc 100 is slower than in the Vector 150 (350 vs 400MHZ or so) and I think slightly slower DRAM cache speed.

    Thanks
  • danwat1234 - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link

    Also how much lower is the Arc 100 120GB version in performance versus 240GB? Less die means less performance..

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now