The ADATA XPG SX950 480GB SSD Review: In Search of Premium
by Billy Tallis on October 9, 2017 8:00 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
The overall performance of the ADATA XPG SX950 on the mixed random I/O test is just a bit average, and about 20% slower than Samsung's SATA drives.
The power efficiency of the SX950 looks a bit better, but the Samsung 850 EVO managed to tie for first place on performance wile holding a substantial lead on power efficiency. The SX950 does hold a slight efficiency advantage over the Samsung 850 PRO on this test.
 |
|||||||||
The SX950's power consumption is very flat across the varying workloads of this test, while the performance improves steadily as the share of writes grows. The top-performing Samsung drives start out about 40MB/s faster than the SX950 and most drives show a more significant performance spike when they reach the all-writes phase of the test.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
The mixed sequential I/O performance of the ADATA XPG SX950 is sub-par, though there are actually three planar MLC SSDs that are even slower. The Crucial BX300 is about 14% faster overall.
The SX950's efficiency is tied with the Crucial BX300, and both are near the top of the chart. The DRAMless OCZ VX500 is far more efficient that the rest of these drives, and without it the SX950's efficiency score would look very good.
 |
|||||||||
During the first half of this test as the proportion of writes grows, the SX950's performance increases and the power consumption drops. During the second half, the improvement falters but neither performance nor power consumption regress significantly. The Crucial BX300 is faster across the board, especially during the read-heavy parts of the test, but it requires significantly more power to deliver that higher read performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
meacupla - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
ADATA's pricing of their lower end is usually in line with the competition. Or, at least, the last drive I bought from them was.This one... not so much
KAlmquist - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
If the intention is for these drives to sell at well below MSRP, Adata is not getting off to a good start. Amazon and B&H Photo are both pricing the 480GB model $20 higher than the MSRP, and Newegg is not selling it at all. My guess is that something tipped the retailers off to the fact that there is not going to be a lot of demand for this product, so they either went for a high markup (to compensate for the cost of holding a low turnover item in stock), or in the case of Newegg, decided to pass on it entirely.I recently bought a Samsung 850 Pro, which proves that there is still at least one person who is (stupid? gullible? bat shit crazy?) enough to pay up for a premium SATA SSD. :-) With a premium SATA SSD, you are paying for:
1) Consistent performance. For example, in the Anandtech Storage Bench light test, the ADATA drive does well if the drive is empty, but performance plummets if the drive is full. The Samsung 850 Pro performs almost identically regardless of whether the drive is full or empty.
2) Reliability. I have no reason to believe the Adata drive is unreliable, but the Samsung 850 Pro has a 10 year warranty and, more important, a long track record in the field. So the 850 Pro wins this category as well.
IndianaKrom - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
A couple years ago when I picked up an 850 pro/1 TB, it was at the time the best SATA SSD. Today it is still the best SATA SSD, and it will probably always be. At this stage I would be surprised if anyone manages to extract any more performance out of SATA than what an 850 Pro can do._mb - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Where is the "Performance Consistency" test?I hope you guys haven't stopped doing that one as that test is the most interesting one and sets you guys apart from other reviewers which don't do that.
Billy Tallis - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
The performance consistency test will be reintroduced soon. Since it was the least relevant to real-world desktop usage and the most likely to kill drives, it's been the lowest priority to run on the new 2017 testbed. Now that I'm pretty much done running all my drives through the 2017 test suite, I'll start going back and running the new performance consistency test on them. Those results will probably start being included in the SSD reviews in November, and they'll be added to the Bench database as they're available.Maleorderbride - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
I realize this is not on you Billy, but why is the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor series not part of the 2017 SSD bench? That series is one of only four that someone might actually purchase knowingly.xype - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
So, at which point will it become a waste of time to review SSDs? Unless such a review only takes 15 minutes, I’d assume there’s plenty of hardware where the conclusions is not a simple "Get a Samsung" >90% of the time — or am I being too optimistic?RaistlinZ - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Q: "So, at which point will it become a waste of time to review SSDs?"A: 2016
xype - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Yeah :-/jabber - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
I don't care. The issue is that SATAIII is saturated and all we need now are reliable mainstream hum drum SSD drives for a cheap price. There is nothing else left to achieve on SATAIII. It's like RAM FFS it's all within a few % whether you spend $100 or $200. They get away with it by adding pointless crap like RGB. I bet by XMAS we'll see SATAIII SSD drives with built in RGB on the edges. Anything to cover up and distract from the fact they are no longer anything special and all the same for day to day purposes.