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 Trion 150 sustains a much higher average data rate over the course of The Destroyer than the Trion 100, and is one of the best-performing budget drives on this test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Average service time is improved over the Trion 100 for the 480GB and 960GB models, but the 240GB Trion 150 has regressed. They all still qualify as low-end but not horrible.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The number of high-latency outliers on has increased significantly at the 10ms threshold, but the situation at the 100ms threshold is mostly better for the Trion 150 than the Trion 100.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Energy usage on The Destroyer has improved noticeably, reflecting that the higher average data rate allowed the Trion 150 to complete the test in a shorter span of time than the Trion 100. The Trion 150 is a little more power-hungry than the ADATA SP550, but this is due to having slightly worse performance; the Trion 150 delivers comparable efficiency to the Silicon Motion-based SP550.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked

79 Comments

View All Comments

  • ummduh - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    Ditto. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, not a chance.
  • Murloc - Saturday, April 2, 2016 - link

    yeah they could just kill the brand for anything SSD-related.
  • NeonFlak - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    The Mushkin Reactor not being included on any charts for SSD reviews must be a conspiracy, right? You guys did review it and it's in your best SSDs for 2016 list. Yet it doesn't appear to be included on the charts for any of the SSD reviews. Or am I just missing it?
  • Billy Tallis - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    It was reviewed with the 2014 test suite and I don't have the drive available to re-test with the current (2015) suite. The results from the Mushkin Reactor review may not be directly comparable to the current reviews, but indicate that it performs a little worse than the Crucial BX100 that has the same controller and flash.
  • ghanz - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    Hi Billy, will there be a future review on the Sandisk Plus which presumably uses SM2246XT & MLC NAND?
    It's the lowest tier in Sandisk's SSD lineup & is priced even lower than the TLC based Ultra II.
  • hojnikb - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    +1 for that. Almost picked it up but went with a second hand 840pro instead.
  • Samus - Sunday, April 3, 2016 - link

    I actually had an 840 Pro that was 2 years old fail on me a few months ago. It was hell getting Samsung to warranty it. The process was awful. I've been using it lightly a few months, and I'd sell it if you want it. $90 bucks. It's a 256GB.
  • vanilla_gorilla - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    The people complaining about the drives performance need to consider that what's beating it cost significantly more. These are drives for low-mid range computers. And for 99% of your desktop use, if I swapped out your much more expensive (probably Samsung) SSD you'd probably never notice the difference in day to day use.

    Take a breath, have a little perspective, stop worrying about inconsequential (relative to the intended use) benchmarks and take a close look at the cost.
  • Arnulf - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    Not really - this drive costs more and sometimes performs worse than its in-house competitor (Trion 100). The fact that it only reliably trumps BX200 is quite telling ...
  • Tanclearas - Friday, April 1, 2016 - link

    Take a look at the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor. Its results will be VERY close to the BX100. That drive outperforms (often by a large margin) the OCZ in nearly all benchmarks, and it costs the same. In fact, Newegg regularly has it on sale for $209.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now