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)

Both capacities of the Samsung PM981 offer great average data rates on the Light test. Their performance when full or empty is improved over the Samsung 960 EVO and comes close to the 960 PRO.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the PM981s aren't much of an improvement over Samsung's last generation, but this is still a new record for flash-based SSDs, even though the PM981 is using TLC NAND.

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

The average write latency of the PM981s is great whether the test is run on a full or empty drive, but the average read latency is slightly worse than the 960 PRO when the test is run on a full drive.

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

The 99th percentile read latency of the PM981s is record-setting when the Light test is run on an empty drive, but only the 1TB sets a record when the test is run on a full drive. The 99th percentile write latency is excellent on both drives in either test scenario.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
POST A COMMENT

53 Comments

View All Comments

  • peevee - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    The most important parameter is the sustained random read, when the user have to actually wait (buffered writes let you continue working right away and it is almost impossible to overflow write caches during normal desktop usage).
    And even SSDs continue to suck in this parameter. 60MB/s? Booo...
    Although testing on 4k random is too strict, NTFS runs are usually 16 clusters (64k).
    Reply
  • wyewye - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    This is why I stopped coming to Anandtech daily: you keep excluding top offers from Intel in your SSD benchmarks.

    Samsung shills!
    Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    LOL, second funniest thing I heard this week Reply
  • ddrіver - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    The first one was actually a joke with a priest and a rabbi... Can't really remember the punchline now. Reply
  • lilmoe - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    Thank you, competing OEMs. Thanks to you, Samsung isn't even trying anymore. Just when I thought they'd introduce 64 layer SLC, they decide to go full TLC, because why try harder? Screw you too, Samsung. Reply
  • ddrіver - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    Exactly my point. It's not so hard for them to go to 64 or 128 or even 256 layer SLC, with even an 8TB SSD. That should be in the range of $500-$600 to be competitive. Instead they choose to deliver a drive that simply doesn't massively improve on every single data point relative to the old generation. It might be good for 95% of consumers but they don't even think of us, professionals.

    Just downloading a game nowadays takes 50-100GB of SSD writes. At this rate who know how long I'm going to be able to use this kind of SSD. Greedy people selling to sheeple. Wake up!
    Reply
  • zodiacfml - Friday, December 01, 2017 - link

    Samsung, like Intel, has no competition taking their sweet time with each iteration. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, December 02, 2017 - link

    In many cases Samsung costs more and has less endurance; the competition is better. Reply
  • melgross - Friday, December 01, 2017 - link

    It’s good to see that manufacturers are so far in advance of where they already are:

    “Other M.2 PCIe SSD vendors have used that tactic and many have also released drives with more substantial heatspreaders or heatsinks in the future.”
    Reply
  • trumanhw - Sunday, December 31, 2017 - link

    1TB 960 Pro looks like it's the shiznit. By far my choice... cost per dollar, and as they said, impunity to the negatives seen in other sizes and models. Where it's not the first, it's so close in the other positions as to require measurement to verify. As always, thank you anand -- you guys rock. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now