Mixed Random Read/Write Performance

For full details of how we conduct our Iometer tests, please refer to this article.

Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write

The 480GB and 120GB do fairly well in mixed performance, but the 240GB is behind its peers. Although it is worth noting that the 480GB does also consume twice the power, making it not very efficient for use in battery driven platforms.

Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write (Power)

There is nothing spectacular in the scaling graphs. The performance scaling could be more aggressive with writes, but the SX930 doesn't have good write performance to begin with.

ADATA XPG SX930

 

Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write

The SX930 does well in mixed sequential performance and the power efficiency is good for this test.

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write (Power)

The reason lies in good read-centric performance, which is surprising given that sequential read performance is the Achilles' heel of the SX930. Despite this it performs well with writes thrown into the mix, although again the performance when the distributions become write-heavy are nothing to write home about.

ADATA XPG SX930
Sequential Performance ATTO & AS-SSD
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Kristian.. that's so shocking to hear! It's the same attitude which gave us the poorly performing JMicron controllers in the first years of SSDs. Was it 2009? It took Anand to explain them why their drives optimized for sequential performance s*cked in the real world. Did they learn nothing during all those years?
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    True yet both has a point. Even if they optimized for low queue depths, real world client workloads wouldn't change much such as booting Windows or loading some games or programs though benchmarks would show the improvements. I would like to see better random performance in all SSDs in the future but it's rare to have that kind of workload in clients and usually it is done so quickly.

    They listened though because Anandtech is already respected when it comes to these.
  • bug77 - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    But can you really blame them? Even Anandtech runs the standard benchmark battery and throws you some number. They don't test real-world scenarios, so why would manufacturers optimize for that?
  • leexgx - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    maybe you should be looking at the AnandTech Storage Bench part of the reviews
  • ZeDestructor - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    No Intel 730/S3500 in the comparisons? :(
  • frenchy_2001 - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Completely different market segment (medium SATA SSD vs premium PCIe/NVMe).
    You can still compare them with BENCH if you want to see what you get for your $$
    (hint: lots if you need it, little in client usage)
  • DigitalFreak - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    So JMicron is still crap after all these years. At least they're consistent.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    Not everyone can have a drive that slows down to 30 MB/s on reads like Samsung.
  • The_Assimilator - Sunday, July 19, 2015 - link

    Samsung has made 1 slip-up that was fixed with a firmware update, JMicron makes controllers that are consistently awful. Which one deserves more of your vitriol?
  • DigitalFreak - Sunday, July 19, 2015 - link

    He's mesmerized by the flames on the box.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now