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)

The average data rates of the MyDigitalSSD SBX on the Heavy test make it clear that while it is not the slowest NVMe SSD we've tested, it is the slowest we've encountered so far from the current generation. The Intel SSD 760p is tied with the SBX at 128GB but has a clear performance advantage at higher capacities. Compared to the SATA SSDs, the SBX doesn't have much advantage over the 860 PRO but is clearly faster than more mainstream drives like the Crucial MX500.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency results show that the 128GB SBX suffers significantly more than its larger siblings when the test is run on a full drive. The 128GB Intel 760p shows an even larger impact that puts its average latency up in the range of the DRAMless SATA drives.

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

The average write latency scores show much greater variation between drives than the average read latency scores. For both scores, the SBX ranks about where expected: worse than most other NVMe drives but usually better than SATA drives.

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

The 99th percentile read latency scores highlight how the 128GB SBX is particularly challenged by its low capacity. All capacities of the SBX have reasonable QoS on the write side of things, where the SBX consistently scores better than the Intel 760p.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The MyDigitalSSD SBX completes the Heavy test while using less energy overall than almost all NVMe SSDs. Its energy usage is slightly higher than typical for mainstream SATA SSDs, but this is no surprise: even a two-lane PCIe link requires more power than a SATA link.

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

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • Samus - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    Ditto. I think it'd crazy to use a 2.5" over an M2 if you have the M2 slot available, especially since M2 SATA drives are often cheaper than 2.5" drives (because they are less expensive to manufacture, and the OEM market is larger.)

    And as far as SATA M2 drives, if you have an M2 slot that supports NVMe, it's hard to justify not using an NVMe SSD when the cost difference is less than 20%...I picked up the WD Black 512GB NVMe drive last week for $150. A decent 540GB class SATA M2 SSD is at least $120.
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    If every dollar counts and the performance increase is small or won't be used, it's pretty easy to justify getting a SATA M.2 drive instead of an NVME one.
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    Especially since small capacities are likely to be very close in speed, when comparing NMVE and SATA M.2.
  • Byte - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    As someone who does a lot of testing/tweaking, i love the easy formfactor, but hate having to screw and unscrew. We really need a tooless update.
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, May 3, 2018 - link

    Honestly, I find it about the same amount of time/difficulty to (un)screw an M.2 drive as it is to work with even a toolless 2.5" drive. Unless the M.2 drive is under the GPU, in which case that really annoys me
  • leexgx - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    Still £/$30 more for a customer who is not going to benefit from the nvme ssd (and less money for you)

    I hardly notice the difference between the sata and nvme ssd my self, main difference is them above 1GB/s speeds but day to day usage I don't really notice much the difference between them unless I am looking for the difference (as long as it's Not a HDD even a slow ssd is many times faster then a hdd)

    Do Samsung 850 evo have am issue if they have been left on for to long (like 30 days) as my 850 evo just crap it self out smart fail at Bios and can't read it (only done basic not hirions boot CD yet)
  • MajGenRelativity - Thursday, May 3, 2018 - link

    Actually, I'd technically make a little more money if I sold them an NVMe SSD (my labor cost scales with price of parts), but they wouldn't benefit from it, so I generally don't recommend them. 850 Evo's don't normally have that issue.
  • peevee - Tuesday, May 1, 2018 - link

    AT, how about a couple of user-reproducible, real life tests? Compilation of a large software package. Unzipping a large archive. Recoding video. Just to demonstrate the scale of improvement the buyers could actually SEE.
  • SanX - Wednesday, May 2, 2018 - link

    Two reasons come instantly. Because only salespeople left in IT. No one even discuss calling lawyers for such confusing people blatant claims like 1600MB/second read speed this product has. And because Windows for example will load something like in 17.6 seconds instead of 17.9 with this drive vs SSD.

    Funny also is that 2-3 times slower drive which does not deliver at all is just 25-30% cheaper then the leaders.
  • peevee - Friday, May 4, 2018 - link

    This site is often for people for assemble their own PCs and/or choose what to buy for their companies. I'd think a few reproducible, real life tests vs proprietary and compressed tests would show the value of improvements.
    Maybe it is what AT really is afraid of, because tests show the improvements which do not exist in real life?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now