AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The WD Blue is tied with the OCZ Trion 150 for average data rate on the Heavy test, where the SanDisk X400 had a substantial advantage that put it close to MLC drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

As with The Destroyer, the WD Blue only has slightly higher average latency than the X400 and is not as slow as the Trion 150. Additionally, the average latency on a full drive beats competitors like the OCZ VX500 and Crucial MX300 that suffer disproportionately when their SLC caches are exhausted.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The number of high-latency outliers makes it obvious that the WD Blue is a TLC drive, but also makes it clear that the drive degrades gracefully under a heavier load rather than falling apart.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The WD Blue is slightly more power efficient on the Heavy test than the X400, and both drives have better than average power consumption.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
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