Random Read Performance

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

Iometer - 4KB Random Read

Random read performance is quite average and only Samsung has a notable advantage in this field, which is partly due to 3D V-NAND and its lower latencies. 

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

Power consumption is on par with the BX100 and even though the BX100 has a slight performance advantage, the SX930 is very power efficient in random reads.

ADATA XPG SX930

Performance scaling could be a little more aggressive especially at QD4 and QD8, but overall random performance appears to be suited for the product.

Random Write Performance

Iometer - 4KB Random Write

Random write performance is mediocre and especially the 480GB SKU could use a boost to be more competitive. Fortunately power consumption is quite low, so the overall efficiency is decent.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

Given the pseudo-SLC cache, one would expect performance scaling to be more aggressive from low to high, especially at QD4 and above, but there leaves an element of wanting compared to other high-end drives on the market.

ADATA XPG SX930
AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    We'll just pretend that the 840 EVO had not been heavily hyped by commentators like you all over the net for quite a long time as well as by review sites. We will also just pretend that it did not have very heavy sales figures. Instead because Samsung put out with a new drive that you want to push we will just pretend that anyone who bought the previous generation drives were idiots.
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    Plus, it was Samsung who decided to stick with the EVO name.
  • sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    @Oxford Guy,

    I couldn't agree more with you. Thank you for explaining things clearer than I ever could have.
  • sonny73n - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    @Stochastic

    840 EVO sequential read at ~100MB/s. My 5900RPM Seagate 2TB HDD is at ~135MB/s. Lol
  • leexgx - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    what about random data speeds (as that's more the problem with HDDS)
  • sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    What about a product that doesn't meet advertised specs? "Fool me once, shame on you..." I'll make sure the second line of that saying won't apply to me.
  • leexgx - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    if you're using a 840 EVO you can update the firmware to restore the drive to more so normal performance (unless your on linux or OSX then best not) even so without the firmware update compared to a HDD the 840 evo SSD is overall faster
  • sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    By the way, I'm still rocking my i5-2500K system OCed @4.5GHz. I always had an SSD for boot drive (C:) and 2 HDD drives for storage since the beginning. Why should there be problems with the HDDs as they're just storage drives? Damn why did I feel the urge to explain to a 5th grader?
  • bill.rookard - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    I was never crazy about the TLC premise either. I prefer the 830's for boot drives since they're very reliable and have a more proven track record. I think the 850's with the 3D NAND should be pretty durable as well. In my servers I have the Crucial MX100's (a pair of 256Gs - one for data, one for sync, but -not- raided) and they're solid drives and have not had a single spot of trouble with those.
  • fokka - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    after the 840 evo fiasko i'm reluctant to put my trust in samsung, especially when there are perfectly capable, performant and affordable SSDs like the bx100 available. 3d nand is nice and all, but for me crucial just seems like the safer bet right now.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now