AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Intel 545s delivers a much faster average data rate on the Light test than the 540s, and is even slightly faster than the Crucial MX300. It isn't quite up to the level of the Samsung drives, but it's reasonably close. The ADATA SU800 takes first place here, showing that it is optimized for high peak performance at the expense of very poor performance under sustained heavy workloads.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)

The average latency of the Intel 545s on the Light test is nothing special, but that's still an improvement over the 540s, or the MX300 when the test is run on a full drive.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

All of the TLC SSDs suffer from significantly higher read latency when the Light test is run on a full drive rather than an empty drive. The MLC-based Samsung 850 PRO is only slightly affected, and the Intel 545s is less severely affected than the Crucial MX300 or the Intel 540s. The empty-drive write latency of the 545s is significantly better than the 540s but still slightly behind the other 3D NAND SSDs. When the test is run on a full drive, the write latency of the Crucial MX300 spikes and the 545s ends up tied with the SU800 and trailing only the Samsung drives.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The Light test is easy enough that the Crucial MX300 has the best power consumption whether the test is run on a full drive or an empty drive. The Intel 540s and 545s are essentially tied for second place, with the Samsung 850 EVO right behind. The Samsung 850 PRO is the only true outlier here: it generally sacrifices some power efficiency to deliver the best performance, but the Light test doesn't stress it enough for that to matter.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy SYSmark 2014 SE
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • ddriver - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - link

    Actually yes. Way to go intel...
  • anactoraaron - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - link

    What's wrong with the 600p? You can get the 512gb from newegg for $179, which make me question the 545s price point. If you aren't limited to sata, the 600p 512gb makes much more sense.
  • ddriver - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - link

    "What's wrong with the 600p? "

    Nothing, aside from the fact it is THE lousiest NVME SSD in the known universe...
  • Drumsticks - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - link

    Good thing it generally sells at SATA prices then...
  • junky77 - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link

    It's really not even as fast as SATA SSDs in many tests (I'm talking midrange SSDs, nothing fancy)
  • kaidenshi - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link

    I've seen a ton of hate for the 600p here, and I can only conclude that I got extremely lucky with mine and ended up with a fluke. Mine has been hands down the fastest SSD I've ever had, and even paired with a bargain-basement Pentium G4500 CPU, it makes everything on my PC feel instant.

    Perhaps it is the slowest NVMe SSD one can buy, but it is much, much faster than any SATA SSD I've had in this machine. It definitely blows the doors off the 850 Evo, despite claims I've seen here that it's slower. The results on this site mirror what I've seen in my own testing. Basically, the Samsung beats the Intel on random reads only, but loses spectacularly on all other metrics.
  • Samus - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link

    It isn't a speed demon, but it isn't slow either. It's just what you'd expect for the price.

    And it's sequential transfer rates are substantially faster than anything SATA, so that is the icing on the cake for an SSD that sells for SATA prices.

    And being Intel, I expect it will be ultimately more reliable than a similar priced product form ADATA, etc.
  • alpha754293 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link

    What's wrong with the Intel 750 series PCIe NVMe SSDs?
  • futrtrubl - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - link

    I'm going to assume the sustained sequential write speed of 40MB/s is a typo.
  • futrtrubl - Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - link

    Oh wow, I see it is not.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now