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. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

On the Heavy test, the average data rates of the 512GB Samsung PM981 again lag slightly behind most MLC-based NVMe drives but are clearly ahead of the competitors' TLC drives. The 1TB PM981 is behaving a bit oddly with slower than expected performance after a secure erase, but great performance when filled.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average latency of the 1TB PM981 is a significant improvement over the 1TB 960 EVO, while the 512GB PM981 doesn't stand out from the other 512GB drives. The 99th percentile latencies aren't particularly good, and the 512GB PM981 scores worse than almost all the other PCIe SSDs of that size.

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

The average write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent especially when the test is run on an empty drive. Average read latencies for both drives are decent but aren't a big improvement over their predecessors.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latencies are one of the few ATSB scores where the TLC-based nature of the PM981 shines through. Many MLC-based SSDs are much better at keeping read latency under control, and the TLC-based Toshiba XG5 also scores much better than the PM981 here. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is pretty good, following suit to the average write latency, while the 512GB model could use some improvement.

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

53 Comments

View All Comments

  • skavi - Monday, December 4, 2017 - link

    Lol, tech isn't wine. If people aren't working to improve it, it won't get better.
  • skavi - Monday, December 4, 2017 - link

    Lol, tech isn't wine. If people aren't working to improve it, it won't get better.
  • WorldWithoutMadness - Friday, December 1, 2017 - link

    that and ram oligopoly. Almost reminded me of intel before ryzen.
  • Drumsticks - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    I doubt we'll see 1TB 3D XPoint in an m.2 form factor until at least the second generation of XPoint. Power consumption looks too high; you'd probably have to severely limit performance to get into m.2, or you'd need a massive unrealistic heatsink.
  • UltraWide - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    Yes, the people want to see 900p destroy these benchmarks!! :)
  • romrunning - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    I would love to see the Optane 900p results included as well.
  • peevee - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    Me too.
  • mczak - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    I miss the power draw numbers.
  • Drazick - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    I don't like those m.2 drives. Can't we have high bandwidth connection for 2.5 inch drives? It will have less thermal issues for desktop configurations.
  • DanNeely - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    That's the barely gained any traction outside of enterprise U.2 connection.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now