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 Samsung 950 Pro was still unmatched in average data rate, even against higher capacity competition. The 2TB 960 Pro pushes the limits a little further.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The 2TB 960 Pro delivers a slightly lower average service time than the 512GB 950 Pro, and the other PCIe SSDs are well behind.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Samsung's PCIe SSDs and the Intel 750 are all very close in terms of the number of high-latency outliers they experience, while the other PCIe SSDs and the best SATA SSDs are 2-4x worse.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The 960 Pro's power consumption is almost identical to the 950 Pro. Samsung's PCIe SSDs have a clear lead over other PCIe SSDs but are not as efficient as the SATA drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light


View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    Does your mobo power the m.2 slot, or just the LEDs? Baring evidence to the contrary I'd assume it's only the latter that are getting power, and enough residual power to run a few LEDs for a minute would only give a few seconds for the 960 in its deepest power saving modes, or far less while doing writes. Reply
  • bji - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    How does your computer know to shut down in that event? Is there a signal to the operating system from the power supply to notify it that power has been lost and that it should shut down? Because if not, all that will happen is that 1 minute more of data will be written to the drive, only to be lost when the power abruptly cuts out when the capacitors lose their charge. Reply
  • ddriver - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    Obviously it doesn't matter if the PSU doesn't send a signal to the system, which it doesn't. It wouldn't matter even if you have an UPS that could last an hour if it can't signal the system to shut down or at least flush caches before power runs out completely. Reply
  • noeldillabough - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    I was thinking the exact same thing ACK no battery/capacitors? I'd never turn off buffer flushing. Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    I agree that what you've described is what those options *seem* to mean. But the semantics behind those checkboxes are clearly very different for NVMe drives and SATA drives, and it is an outright bug for Microsoft to apply the same description to both cases. The Samsung 960 Pro is also not the only drive to severely underperform without disabling write cache buffer flushing; the 950 Pro without Samsung's driver seems to be similar and I've seen this behavior on at least other vendor's NVMe controller. This is a serious concern that requires further investigation, but I'm not ready to lay the blame on the Samsung 960 Pro. If Microsoft's defaults for NVMe drives is the most reasonable behavior for consumer workloads (including the risk of power loss), then that would imply that most or all of the vendor-specific NVMe drivers are playing fast and loose with data safety, and possibly so are Microsoft's SATA/AHCI drivers. Reply
  • shodanshok - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    "that would imply that most or all of the vendor-specific NVMe drivers are playing fast and loose with data safety, and possibly so are Microsoft's SATA/AHCI drivers"

    This can be quite true, especially considering as some vendors publish "turbo-cached mode" that supposedly enhance disk write speed. By the way the storage controller drives is such a critical kernel component that I will try hard to stay with Microsoft own driver, unless extensive testing on vendor-specific drivers confirms their stability.
  • HollyDOL - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    Wouldn't INT 0 (power loss) fire fast enough to execute flush command in time for decent PSU to handle that before running out of power? Most of "decent+" PSUs seem to have quite a power buffer in capacitors to survive that long... with 300k IOPS it should manage to save with a decent margin.
    Even my old Corsair TX manages to survive micro-outages without computer shutting down or crashing. Afaic ATX2.01 PSU is required to endure at least 17ms power outage without losing output power. With 330k IOPS at hand it should be enough to quick save.

    Not that I'd be all out to go and try :-)
  • beginner99 - Wednesday, October 19, 2016 - link

    This would be something guys at anandtech could test. It would also probably help to build back the sites reputation and output of interesting articles.

    Create a script that does some file system operations, then pull the plug. Repeat 10 times for each drive, driver and settings and see what happens. Yeah a lot of work.
  • leexgx - Tuesday, October 25, 2016 - link

    only intel SSDs that have super caps never lose data ,, Intel 320 and S3500 (some site tested it and only intel SSDs never corrupted some SSDs flat out failed the Crucial M4)
    normal SSDs that have small caps (not super caps) that say they have power loss protection that is only there to protect the page table from bee trashed not the data it self that is currently been written that still be loss
  • Gigaplex - Tuesday, October 18, 2016 - link

    "then that would imply that most or all of the vendor-specific NVMe drivers are playing fast and loose with data safety"

    I would not be surprised if that's exactly what they're doing.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now