AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

As with the Heavy test, the freshly-erased ADATA SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 deliver great average data rates on the Light test. It isn't quite class-leading performance, but it comes reasonably close, even for the smallest 240GB SX8200. Full-drive performance continues to be much lower, but on this test the performance loss isn't much larger than what other top TLC-based SSDs suffer from.

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

The 99th percentile latency of the 240GB SX8200 is a bit high when the Light test is run on a full drive, but otherwise the latency scores are pretty good. The 480GB SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 have far lower latency on the Light test than either the MLC-based SX8000 or TLC-based GAMMIX S10.

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

The average read latency scores from the older generation of ADATA NVMe drives weren't bad, but the new generation's scores are excellent. The average write latency scores are also very good, and even the significantly higher latency of the 240GB SX8200's full-drive test run is much better than SATA performance.

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

The 99th percentile read and write latency scores from the newer ADATA drives are very good, and the 99th percentile write latency in particular is far better for the 480GB drives than for their predecessors.

ATSB - Light (Power)

Power efficiency isn't a strong point for the ADATA SX8200 and GAMMIX S11, but their energy usage numbers aren't embarrassing: they're still well below the Samsung 970 EVO, though the older (slower) ADATA drives used a bit less energy and the best current NVMe drives are able to compete with SATA drives for efficiency.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
POST A COMMENT

19 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pewzor - Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - link

    FuzeDrive (aka Virtual SSD) is used by Dell EMC data center, people saying you lose FuzeDrive you lose everything is just full of it. FuzeDrive is just Virtual SSD (by Enmotus) rebranded for AMD use.
    It works like Intel Rapid Storage except VSSD is data center proven.
    There's a very little chance for total catastrophic failure to happen, which could happen to IRST as well.
    You will lose your data when multiple drives fail at the same time, which is true even for raid 1 and raid 5.
    VSSD/FuzeDrive when it pushes data across different devices it creates a mirror in (duplicates in shadow file), and the duplicates are not purged until after the data is verified to complete copying to the new destination drive.
    Only time this happens is when file is copied the destination drive fails the instant the copy is verified then the source device fails and breaks the shadow image.
    Technically even a 3 drive raid 5 array could fail catastrophically if all 3 drives failed.
    Reply
  • eddieobscurant - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    I think the drives deserved an award. Reply
  • Samus - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    Double sided :(

    Would be good for a notebook considering the power profile and price. The 980 EVO is just dangerous in a mobile device so I've been sticking to the WD Black, which is still pretty expensive.
    Reply
  • wolve - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    FYI this SSD is on sale for $100 on Rakuten. Got it a few weeks ago when they had a similar deal.
    https://www.rakuten.com/shop/adata/product/ASX8200...
    Reply
  • SanX - Saturday, July 28, 2018 - link

    This drive was completely destroyed by the Destroyer still the author and the crowd sing the Dithyrambs to it. Reply
  • gglaw - Saturday, August 11, 2018 - link

    the vast majority of home users could not even emulate the Destroyer tests if they tried and it has no bearing on the actual user experience. It is there mostly for academic purposes - did you even read the details of what the Destroyer test runs? For even an advanced home techie, this drive's price/performance is most likely the best that currently exists, especially when it goes on sale for $95 for the ~500GB model. That's not much higher than a budget SATA drive for identical performance to a 970 EVO or WD Black for home use. It's been on sale for $95-$100 3X now that I'm aware of, not only should the author give it a positive review, for the segment it addresses I feel it should be even given Editor's Choice. And yes I have 2 of these so not just making up opinions based on reading tests that I don't understand. There is absolutely no visible difference between this, the 960 EVO and 970 EVO which I have all running in the same LAN room. Reply
  • Wolfclaw - Tuesday, July 31, 2018 - link

    Based on review, I purchased the 240GB SX8200 for new Ryzen build, it came yesterday, now just waiting for the motherboard ... running out of patience :( Reply
  • Wolfclaw - Saturday, August 4, 2018 - link

    OK, got one for my x470 and it is fast, would I notice the difference to say a Samsung, I doubt it. 4 seconds form boot to W10 desktop, I have a large Outlook data footprint and it opens and is ready a lot quicker than my old SSD, Visual Studio is extremely responsive with it. Reply
  • a_pete - Friday, August 31, 2018 - link

    I think there's an issue in the power consumption information for the Optane 800p.

    It's being listed here (and on other charts) as using 0.8W while active, but on the review page it was actually using 3.5W active. This is messing up all the Power efficiency charts.

    Thanks!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now