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 Crucial MX300 performs very well on the Light test with an average data rate that the MX500 cannot quite match, but the MX500 doesn't lose as much performance when the test is run on a full drive.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the Crucial MX500 are largely unremarkable, though the 99th percentile latency is near the high end of the normal range. The MX500 is a substantial improvement over the MX300 when it comes to full-drive performance.

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

The average read latency of the Crucial MX500 on the Light test is close to the Samsung 850 PRO and EVO when the test is run on an empty drive, but is merely average when the drives are full. The average write latency is a bit below average in both cases, but the full-drive penalty is much reduced compared to the MX300.

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

As with the average read and write latency scores, the 99th percentile read and write scores fall within the normal range. The 99th percentile read latency is a bit better than average while the 99th percentile write latency is worse than most drives, but the MX500 isn't an outlier in either direction.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The power consumption of the MX500 ranks a bit better on the Light test than it did on the Heavy test. The Crucial MX300 is still substantially better, and the slow but DRAMless Toshiba TR200 holds on to a comfortable lead. The Samsung 850 PRO and EVO are in last place.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
POST A COMMENT

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    *shrug*

    While Java apps tend to be clunky to use, for a firmware updater usability isn't a top priority; and Java is an easy way to create an app with the needed low level system access that will run on almost any OS.
    Reply
  • Flunk - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    It's a shame they don't native compile it. The Oracle Java runtime is such a security problem I just don't have it installed on anything anymore. Reply
  • coder111 - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    What on earth are you talking about? Don't install the browser plugin- no security problem. And get JDK, not JRE. Java language or runtime environment is not a security threat in any way. Browser plugin is, but it's been obsolete for more than a decade and only used for legacy applications, and shouldn't be used at all. Reply
  • Wolfpup - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    I still don't want it on my system...but I'm sure I've updated firmware on Crucial drives without Java installed. Reply
  • smilingcrow - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Just uninstall after using the software as it's not as if you need to run an SSD utility frequently. Reply
  • Cooe - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link

    Tin foil hat alert :) Reply
  • erple2 - Thursday, December 28, 2017 - link

    Wait, what? Unless you're compiling Java applications, or trying to profile a running Java application and want to tune jvm settings, there's no real need anymore for the jdk. The jre is more than sufficient for the vast majority of needs. The days of the jre java.exe being subpar to java.exe included in the jdk died in the 1.6 days. Reply
  • mode_13h - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Traditionally, you can use the Micron enterprise tool with many of these drives. They caution against it, but it works fine in at least some cases - probably the MX drives are a good bet. Reply
  • HardwareDufus - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    I have an OCZ-VERTEX4.. so I was looking at reviews here on AnandTech of my device to make a comparison. However, my drive was reviewed in 2012... when they used Desktop Iometer... which shows really high numbers....

    How do the newer testing methods at AnandTech differ from what they did in the past. Per these 2012 charts, my Vertex4 is faster.... but I know that's not the case after 5 years of progress...
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Saturday, December 23, 2017 - link

    I've run AS-SSD, CDM, ATTO and HDTach on drives going back to the Vertex 4 (also 3, 2E, Agility 4 and Vector). I have some M.2 results to add to the archive, but here it is atm:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/ssdtests.zip
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now