AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Crucial MX500 500GB delivers a slightly slower average data rate on The Destroyer than the Intel 545s or the Crucial BX300, but it is still substantially faster than previous MX series drives. The MLC drives are on top, but the Samsung 860 PRO's lead is less than 15%. This time last year, the top MLC drive held a 46% advantage over Crucial's TLC-based MX300.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the Crucial MX500 500GB are good but still lag behind the MLC based drives and the Intel 545s. The MX500's average latency is essentially tied with the Samsung 850 EVO, and its 99th percentile latency is clearly better.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The average read and write latency scores for the Crucial MX500 are both slower than the Intel 545s, but are at least as fast as any other TLC based drive, including the Samsung 850 EVO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the MX500 is much better than the MX300, but the 99th percentile write latency score has barely improved. In both cases, that leaves the MX500 trailing the Intel 545s but ahead of the Samsung 850 EVO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The power consumption of the Crucial MX500 on The Destroyer is slightly higher than the MX300, and is clearly worse than the Intel 545s or the Crucial BX300. The regression relative to the MX300 isn't serious enough to worry mobile users, but it probably means the MX500 will end up being the least power-efficient mainstream SATA SSD of its generation, once we've tested the 860 EVO.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • KarlKastor - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link

    I would like to see a review of old SSDs (Indlinx Barefoot, first Intel SSDs, Sandforce SSDs, crucial c300, Samsung 830 for example) and how they would compete against today's drives. The test parcours is much more detailed and challenging for the drives. Can older drives pass this test reasonable good enough or is an upgrade to a modern ssd an major improvement, besides of capacity. Reply
  • velanapontinha - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link

    ^this^ Reply
  • peevee - Monday, February 5, 2018 - link

    Most decent SLC SATA drives should be fine, but there were terrible examples like Kingston V-series which were not much better than HDDs to begin with.
    But I'd like to see the tests too.
  • Dragonstongue - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    am using your charts to compare the previous results of the MX200 vs the "new" MX500, and most of the numbers and data have changed to show the MX200 as "better" than it once was, if properly tested, this should not have been shown as such.

    IMHO, if a drive at a specific time using a specific set of drivers etc had say a data rate of 217.85 (crucial MX200 500gb) why does this review "change" to show this same drive now being 235 (a gain of around 8%)

    numbers should not be becoming "magically better" IMO, unless firmware was changed without notification, or tests were not run properly the first time around or something like that?

    it is quite hard to do direct comparisons when your data does not agree with itself ^.^

    MX500 is supposed to be "a fair bit quicker" in most things than MX200 or MX300 (around 18% for the 500gb models..20 odd % for the 1tb models) something is not agreeing with itself based on your data/numbers/review, this is troublesome to say the least, so I suppose my question in this regard is, how "factual" is the testing methodology being used, such as latency numbers (where the original data of MX200 read higher numbers in ms than this review does making this review appearing as if the mx200 is that much faster than it was previously (less latency)
    and the power consumption was also higher previously whereas in this review it uses "less" power, the heck is up with this?

    if one screwed up original testing methodology "I understand" but, if one just changes data willy nilly to suit vendors or make the older or newer stuff appear better than it actually is, screw that noise (we already have plenty enough companies/corps that do that crud Ngreedia, Apple, Intel, MSFT etc)

    Just saying, had my eye on the MX500, my MX100 256gb has been working very well for me last 2.5-3 years or something like that (still at 99% life) MX200 500gb still snappy (though not quite as snappy as the MX100 for some reason and I have never had it "loaded" currently is at 92% life and yet is at least a 9 month newer drive, have not copied.deleted anywhere close to as much as it claims I have which is confusing...MX500 is supposed to have that much more endurance, but, if the MX200 seems to "chew" endurance more than it should, that is not a good thing.

    I have taken all the steps I can to reduce writing to the drive (unless needed) have trim on since day 1 etc...

    Anyways, compare the "original" MX200 data you reviewed dated may 22, 2015, with this review dated february 2, 2018, quite a difference in appearances from how so so the drive appeared (MX200) vs the way it "now" appears (seems like not quite a poor drive, though it never was crud drive)

    would say IMO, double check your info (past info) so you are not making silly mistakes if possible (I know no one is perfect by all means, but I highly doubt you keep hundreds of drives on hand so you can test them a year or 2 down the line, most review sites do not, so does this mean pulling numbers out of thin air?)

    take care, love your site by all means, lots of good reading ^.^
  • dpjtpa - Friday, June 14, 2019 - link

    This is definitely the option I will be purchasing soon Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now