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


View All Comments

  • msroadkill612 - Sunday, December 31, 2017 - link

    Not if you have lane rich TR/Epyc IMO. 2x 512GB 960 proS in raid 0 is 2x~ faster for similar money Reply
  • msroadkill612 - Monday, January 01, 2018 - link

    It bears noting that each ssd is also a controller, and the samsung one seems very superior kit which may contribute to samsung's scary advantages.

    Each is a 5x ARM core processor.
  • msroadkill612 - Monday, January 01, 2018 - link

    To be the devils advocate on TLC vs MLC, isn't it odd to second guess samsung?

    AMD natively demonstrate that raid striping nvme (running them in parallel if u like?), results in ~seamless multiple of raw nvme ssd speeds.

    Since current samsung drives individually ~max out the 4x pcie3practical bandwidth available to the m.2 port (~3500MB/s), the ceiling on nvme device speeds currently, is not set by nand, but by IO limitations.

    Given multiples of speed can be achieved by raid means , the main issue is not nand chip performance (already dazzlingly fast vs recent storage options), but how to better satisfy insatiable demand using better production.

    Personally, I would defer to samsung on that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now