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 WD Blue fails to keep up with the competition on The Destroyer, trailing behind everything except the Crucial BX200. Where the SanDisk X400 was one of the fastest TLC SSDs, the WD Blue is merely acceptable.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The average service time of the WD Blue is only slightly worse than the SanDisk X400, and still clearly better than the OCZ Trion 150. This suggests that the WD Blue's lower average data rate is due to it being uniformly a bit slower, and that it isn't experiencing any severe stalling.

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

The WD Blue does not suffer from any more high-latency outliers than other TLC drives at the 100ms threshold, but at the 10ms threshold it is worse than average where the X400 exceeded expectations.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

The WD Blue thankfully shows no regression in power efficiency and falls in the second tier of drives with energy usage, on par with the SanDisk X400.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

77 Comments

View All Comments

  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    I'd pay the extra $6 for the 1TB 850 Evo, which preforms much better. Reply
  • vladx - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    I'd rather pay $50 less for the Sandisk X400 than to spend an addiitional $56 for some benchmark points that are hardly relevant to real world experience Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    in a heavily used system, those "extra points" can mean more then just a high score. Reply
  • vladx - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    For a heavily used system, you buy a Samsung 850 Pro or PCIe SSD. Reply
  • Impulses - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    The EVOs do go on sale somewhat often... I can see paying a premium for them either way, but I definitely wouldn't pay an extra large premium for the Pro, at that point you might as well go PCI-E/M.2 IMO... Unless it's a really fringe case where you need both the fastest+largest consumer drive available and price (or leaving performance on the table) isn't a concern. Reply
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Saturday, October 15, 2016 - link

    Extra large premium for the Pro???

    I require a minimum of 160GB for my Boot Drives in my test Rigs so I need 250 - 256GB SSD's minimum

    Lets look at the Huge Premium at Newegg for the 256GB 850 Pro shall we

    Oct 15 2016
    850 EVO / 250GB $99.99 OUT OF STOCK
    850 Pro / 256GB $123 IN STOCK

    850 EVO warranty 3 years
    850 Pro warranty 10 years

    850 EVO TLC Nand
    850 Pro MLC Nand (40nm process)

    Firmware problems
    850 EVO ???
    850 Pro None

    Would anyone here spend more than the difference in price between these 2 SSD's just for an extended warranty on an EVO?

    The better buy is the Pro!
    It also has much better compatability with various Operating Systems than PCIe / M.2 SSDs

    I'm using mine for Windows XP / Windows 8.1 / Windows 10 and Linux Mint
    Try running any OS that is not a DRM Spyware Platform on your precious M.2 drive
    Reply
  • Bullwinkle J Moose - Sunday, October 16, 2016 - link

    Apparently it was only the 840 EVO that had firmware problems so the 850 EVO firmware appears to be fine and neither the 850 EVO or Pro has burst into flames yet Reply
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, October 17, 2016 - link

    Linux loves my 950 pro. So yeah. Reply
  • Magichands8 - Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - link

    What a disappointment. Yet another low capacity, highly priced SSD permanently crippled by the SATA interface... just like all the other SSDs we've been presented with for years and years. Not touching this with a 10 foot pole. Reply
  • npz - Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - link

    When you're doing random small I/O, SATA is plenty.

    Look at the benchmarks here, at pure random, none even come close at all to 6Gbps / 600MBs.
    And look at the light workload for Anandtech's benchmark. It's a mixture that is still significantly less than SATA's limit.

    And these mixed with bursty random I/Os are very common desktop workloads. Take for example browser usage. They all **constantly** write and read small I/O. Web browsers if left open, write 20 - 40GB a day! They are consantly updating the current save state for session restore, updating the database they use, etc. If the browser is not maxing out the cpu, then small pauses and waits while you load pages and browse, especially with many tabs open are always a result of waiting those small I/Os.

    Even stuff like torrents are nothing but a constant random tiny I/Os. Loading up a large program is also random I/O. It has to read many small libraries and load small config files, etc.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now