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


View All Comments

  • 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
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, August 10, 2018 - link

    Not recalled. There was a program where people could ask OCZ for replacements. But, OCZ also "ran out" of stock for that replacement program and never even covered the drive that was most severely affected: the 240 GB 64-bit NAND unit. Reply
  • BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - link

    I believe the problems that plagued the 840 EVO were relevant to the 840 based on two facts. Both SSDs used the same flash. Samsung eventually released a (partial) fix for the 840 similar to the 840 EVO. The fix was apparently incompatible with Linux/BSD, though. Reply
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - link

    You'd also be providing useless data by doing so. The drives will have been superseded at least twice before you even have anything to show from the (very expensive) testing. Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    >muh ssd endurance boogeyman
    Like clockwork.
  • StrangerGuy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    "I am a TRUE PROFESSIONAL who can't pay more endurance for my EXTREME SSD WORKLOADS by either from my employer or by myself, I'm the poor 0.01% who is being oppressed by QLC!" Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    Memes didn't make the IBM Deathstar drives fun and games. Reply
  • StrangerGuy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    I'm sure you were the true prophetic one warning us about those crappy those 75GXPs before they were released, oh wait.

    I'm sorry why are you here and why should anyone listen to you again?
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    Memes and trolling may be entertaining but this isn't really the place for it. Reply
  • jjj - Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - link

    Not bad, at least for now when there are no QLC competitors.
    The pressure QLC will put on HDDs is gonna be interesting too.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now