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)

When the Heavy test is run on an empty Intel SSD 660p, the test is able to operate almost entirely within the large SLC cache and the average data rate is competitive with many high-end NVMe SSDs. When the drive is full and the SLC cache is small, the low performance of the QLC NAND shows through with an average data rate that is slower than the 600p or Crucial MX500, but still far faster than a mechanical hard drive.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the 660p on the empty-drive test run are clearly high-end; the use of a four-channel controller doesn't seem to be holding back the performance of the SLC cache. The full-drive latency scores are an order of magnitude higher and worse than other SSDs of comparable capacity, but not worse than some of the slowest low-capacity TLC drives we've tested.

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

The average read latency of the Intel 660p on the Heavy test is about 2.5x higher for the full-drive test run than when the test is run on a freshly-erased drive. Neither score is unprecedented for a NVMe drive, and it's not quite the largest disparity we've seen between full and empty performance. The average write latency is where the 660p suffers most from being full, with latency that's about 60% higher than the already-slow 600p.

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

The 99th percentile read latency scores from the 660p are fine for a low-end NVMe drive, and close to high-end for the empty-drive test run that is mostly using the SLC cache. The 99th percentile write latency is similarly great when using the SLC cache, but almost 20 times worse when the drive is full. This is pretty bad in comparison to other current-generation NVMe drives or mainstream SATA drives, but is actually slightly better than the Intel 600p's best case for 99th percentile write latency.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The Intel SSD 660p shows above average power efficiency on the Heavy test, by NVMe standards. Even the full-drive test run energy usage is lower than several high-end drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
POST A COMMENT

88 Comments

View All Comments

  • Solid State Brain - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    The stated write endurance should already factor data retention, if it follows JEDEC specifications (JESD219A). For consumer drives, it should be be when the retention time for freshly stored data drops below 1 year after the SSD is powered off, at 30°C. Reply
  • BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - link

    The Samsung 840 EVO would like to have a word with you. Reply
  • eastcoast_pete - Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - link

    Yes, it should factor data retention, and it should follow JEDEC specs. The problem is the "should". That doesn't mean it or they do. I found that "Trust but verify" is as important in IT as it is in life. Even the biggest names screw up, at least occasionally. Reply
  • IntenvidiAMD - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    Are there any reviewers that do test that? Reply
  • DanNeely - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    Over 18 months between 2013 and 2015 Tech Report tortured a set of early generation SSDs to death via continuous writing until they failed. I'm not aware of anyone else doing the same more recently. Power off retention testing is probably beyond anyone without major OEM sponsorship because each time you power a drive on to see if it's still good you've given its firmware a chance to start running a refresh cycle if needed. As a result to look beyond really short time spans, you'd need an entire stack of each model of drive tested.

    https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endura...
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    Torture tests don't test voltage fading from disuse, though. Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    And audiophiles always claim no tests are ever enough to disprove their supernatural hearing claims, so... Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    SSD defects have been found in a variety of models, such as the 840 and the OCZ Vertex 2. Reply
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - link

    Please explain the Vertex2, because I have a lot of them and so far none have failed. Or do you mean the original Vertex2 rather than the Vertex2E which very quickly replaced it? Most of mine are V2Es, it was actually quite rare to come across a normal V2, they were replaced in the channel very quickly. The V2E is an excellent SSD, especially for any OS that doesn't support TRIM, such as WinXP or IRIX. Also, most of the talk about the 840 line was of the 840 EVO, not the standard 840; it's hard to find equivalent coverage of the 840, most sites focused on the EVO instead. Reply
  • Valantar - Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - link

    If the Vertex2 was the one that caused BSODs and was recalled, then at least I had one. Didn't find out that the drive was the defective part or that it had been recalled until quite a lot later, but at least I got my money back (which then paid for a very nice 840 Pro, so it turned out well in the end XD). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now