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 Intel SSD 660p manages an average data rate on The Destroyer that is only slightly slower than the Crucial MX500 mainstream SATA SSD and the Kingston A1000 entry-level NVMe SSD. It's a step up from the performance of the 512GB Intel SSD 600p, and more than three times faster than the DRAMless Toshiba RC100.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores for the Intel SSD 660p are quite poor by NVMe standards and significantly worse than the Crucial MX500, but the latency isn't completely out of control like it is for the Toshiba RC100.

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

The average read latency from the 660p during The Destroyer is comparable to other low-end NVMe SSDs and better than the 600p or Crucial MX500. The average write latency is more than twice that of the MX500 but lower than the 600p and RC100.

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

The 99th percentile read latency from the Intel SSD 660p on The Destroyer is significantly worse than any other NVMe SSD or the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD, but the 99th percentile write latency is an improvement over the 600p and does not show the extreme outliers that the Toshiba RC100 suffers from.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The energy usage of the 660p during The Destroyer is a bit better than average for NVMe SSDs, though still quite a bit higher than is typical for SATA SSDs. The 660p is less power hungry than most NVMe drives and slower, but not enough to drag out the test for so long that the power advantage disappears.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

92 Comments

View All Comments

  • npz - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link

    IMO no, not from USB sticks. There's this whitepaper from Dell concerning retention for their enterprise SSDs:
    http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pvau...

    It depends on the how much the flash has been used (P/E cycle used), type of flash, and
    storage temperature. In MLC and SLC, this can be as low as 3 months and best case can be more than 10 years. The retention is highly dependent on temperature and workload.

    The pattern that I've noticed is that the more write durability and write-performance-oriented, the lower the retention rate (so it's actually inversely related)

    Now JEDEC specifies 1 year retention but who knows how many SSDs really follow it. As we saw with Samsun 840 it wouldn't have lasted a year without the firmware update, but that still requires periodically powered on. I still don't think it would last a full year after being tortured, then unplugged.
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link

    And yet every article about it said Samsung "fixed" the drives. Reply
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link

    Nope, they noted that Samsung fixed the performance issues - which they did. Every article I read on the topic noted that this would still likely affect drives in a power-down state and a couple even tested it. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, August 10, 2018 - link

    The headlines clearly implied, or (nearly always) directly stated, that Samsung issued "fixes".

    Fixes are not kludgy work-arounds.
    Reply
  • milkywayer - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link

    My question is, should I truest this drive with valuable info if endurance can be an issue?

    If the PC is frequently powered On, will it refresh the cells?
    Reply
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link

    If you have quite literally "valuable info" then don't use a consumer SSD at all. Heck, damn the speed, you're far better with even a used 840 Pro. That's why I obtained one for this build I did, along with an SM951 for a scratch video drive:

    http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/charitypc1.html
    Reply
  • BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link

    First point of interest is always have a backup plan. If information is valuable, don't rely on any single copy of it.

    As to your question of endurance, I don't think most personal use cases are likely to have an issue. If you have a professional workload, get a professional drive. The 840 Pro that mapesdhs keeps evangelizing is actually a pretty good option, though a Pro series (MLC) nvme drive will provide better performance while still providing endurance is the same ballpark as the 840Pro.

    As to whether it will refresh the cell if powered on, I would expect most Samsung drive will, though it is not known whether
    Reply
  • BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link

    As to whether it will refresh if powered on, I don't believe that Samsung flash required the refresh cycle once the moved to 3D NAND with a larger feature size. That said, since QLC halves the voltage swing (and corresponding charge) vs TLC, it is likely that Samsung will need to do something to prevent voltage drift. This may not necessarily require active refreshing, though. It is not known (by me) whether this is a requirement for other manufacturer's 3DQLC NAND either. Reply
  • BurntMyBacon - Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - link

    I get why they don't want an edit feature, but would it really hurt if they added a time limited recall type edit feature for when you fat thumb a hot key that posts your unfinished message before you are done with it. Maybe give you five minutes after a post initiate the edit to catch typos or grammar issues. It wouldn't really be enough to alter a conversation as it is unlikely that others will have responded within this time frame. Reply
  • AbRASiON - Tuesday, August 7, 2018 - link

    Considering the abysmal performance of this thing, I think you really need a $/GB chart on the page and it would be nice to put in a very fast, modern hard drive. Something huge and 7200RPM with a lot of cache on it.

    Just to put it in perspective, because as it stands, wow this thing looks terrible. I expect VERY cheap prices if they're gonna run like this.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now