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)

It is quite clear that the 600p takes a very different approach to managing its 3D TLC than the Crucial MX300. The latter performed much better than most TLC drives when the Heavy test was run on an empty drive, but fell to last place when the test was conducted on a full drive. The 600p by contrast performed quite similarly in both scenarios due to its fixed-size SLC cache. Unfortunately, this means the 600p has no significant advantage over budget SATA SSDs on this test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The 600p has lower average service times than the planar TLC SATA SSDs, but it isn't up to the level of the Samsung 850 EVO or MLC SATA SSDs.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The percentage of high-latency outliers shows that the 600p is in a category of its own, sitting above planar TLC SSDs that get thoroughly bogged down by the write-heavy test but not good enough to be lumped together with MLC SSDs.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The 600p is less efficient than any M.2 or SATA SSD on this test, and is only matched by the OCZ RD400A because the latter is doing its own 12V to 3.3V conversion instead of drawing directly from the 3.3V supply.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Comments Locked

63 Comments

View All Comments

  • ramvalleru - Tuesday, December 6, 2016 - link

    What advantages does Intel 600p has over Samsung 850 Evo with its 4 x pci-e. Less bottleneck with multi application writes and reads?
  • KAlmquist - Friday, December 9, 2016 - link

    If you mean compared to the 960 EVO, the 600p is less expensive. Also, with the 600p you are getting the Intel brand name and quality control, backed up with a 5 year warranty vs. a 3 year warranty on the 960 EVO.
  • RetsamCP - Saturday, December 24, 2016 - link

    I may just be a little confused but how did the 960 Pro 2TB bench and average service time latency of 160.9 ms in the Destroyer bench but score 0 for percentage of service times >100 ms?

    There had to be service times over 100 ms for the average to be over 100 ms, but how was the average affected so much when service times >100 ms made up <0.01% of the total benchmark?

    What am I missing?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now