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 Destroyer truly lives up to its name when presented with the Toshiba RC100. High-end NVMe SSDs complete this test in as little as seven hours. Mainstream SSDs usually take more like twelve hours. The 240GB Toshiba RC100 took 34 hours, leaving us with insufficient time to run the test again with HMB off. The Host Memory Buffer doesn't even come close making an impact on how long the larger 480GB model took, because The Destroyer simply moves too much data for a small cache to matter.

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

The average latency from the 480GB RC100 on The Destroyer is at least twice as high as that of other low-end NVMe SSDs, and the 240GB's latency is an order of magnitude worse. The situation for 99th percentile latency is even worse, leaving the RC100 looking bad even in comparison to most SATA SSDs.

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

The average read latency of the 480GB RC100 is a bit high but still within the normal range for most SSDs, but the 240GB stands out with more than twice the read latency. For writes, both capacities of the RC100 score poorly, and this is why the overall average tanked.

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

In spite of its DRAMless design, the 480GB RC100 manages a decent 99th percentile read latency score, but its smaller sibling can't control read latency under a workload this heavy. For writes, both capacities have very high 99th percentile latency, with the 240GB approaching a full second for its worst-case completion times.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The Toshiba RC100 uses relatively little power, but its poor performance means that the test runs long enough that total energy usage isn't great. The 240GB RC100's run of The Destroyer went on for longer than any other SSD tested in recent memory, leaving it with an energy usage score that looks more like what a desktop hard drive would produce.

Exploring The Host Memory Buffer Feature AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • bug77 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    I'm talking about what is, you're talking wishful thinking.
    PCIe is supposed to cater to a lot of devices, it can't change its sleep current just because of one type of devices in particular. Not saying it's impossible, just that it's highly unlikely.
    Reply
  • PeachNCream - Monday, June 18, 2018 - link

    Since SATA has not been entirely replaced by NVMe yet, there is still time (and lots of it really) for changes. It's simply a matter of a drive identifying itself to the PCIe bus and then making on-the-fly sleep state changes. Yes, that's non-trivial, but far from wishful thinking. Reply
  • Gasaraki88 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    SATA needs to go away. That is old technology for old drives. NVMe should be the new standard for hard drives, just like SAS was a better protocol than SATA, NVMe has less overhead and is designed for NAND storage. Reply
  • Targon - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Space, and because people like these super-thin machines. Also, without the extra packaging, it may be less expensive to make a card based SSD compared to a 2.5 inch SSD drive. Smaller=cheaper when it comes to shipping/packaging as well.

    SATA hasn't really had any evolution over the past few years as well, so without something big to hype, SATA isn't a buzz word that attracts buyers. No SATA 4 standard, so they can't say it is the latest and greatest, while card based SSDs have an appeal as seeming to be a newer technology.
    Reply
  • HStewart - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    One thing I am curious about is what performance do you need for SSD in external USB drive - I have a couple of them. These cheaper drivers are probably good for that purpose Reply
  • timecop1818 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Except cheap USB to M.2 adapters ONLY support SATA drives. The review unit is NVMe. Reply
  • Targon - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    USB 3.1 at the minimum if you want an external SSD in my opinion. Reply
  • HStewart - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    The one I am using ( actually two of them ) is WavLink USB 3.1 Gen 2 that actually does 10gbs '

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06Y5XJG8J/ref=o...

    It is not intended be primary storage - but works quite nice for my needs.

    One thing some one should come out with lower cost TB3 drive case - right now they are at premium.
    Reply
  • peevee - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    I wonder who would possibly buy the 120GB version given that only extra #20 will bring it to useful capacity and performance? Reply
  • Jorgp2 - Thursday, June 14, 2018 - link

    Could you elaborate on how to configure the Host Memory Buffer Size? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now