Sequential Read Performance

Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read performance of the ADATA XPG SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 is the exact opposite of how their predecessors behave. The newer drives provide the same fast performance we saw with the 1TB HP EX920, while the older drives are at the very bottom of the chart with only 15-20% the throughput of the SX8200.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data. This test is run twice: once with the drive prepared by sequentially writing the test data, and again after the random write test has mixed things up, causing fragmentation inside the SSD that isn't visible to the OS. These two scores represent the two extremes of how the drive would perform under real-world usage, where wear leveling and modifications to some existing data will create some internal fragmentation that degrades performance, but usually not to the extent shown here.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer sequential read test, the SM2262 drives continue to dominate, but we find that they do not handle internal fragmentation as well as most other TLC drives. They lose proportionally more performance as a result of the fragmentation, but don't fall far behind the competition.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The power consumption of the SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 during the sustained sequential read test is a bit on the high side, but it's more than offset by the high performance, giving the drives some of the highest efficiency scores possible with flash memory.

The SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 hit full sequential read speeds at QD2, and sustain them for the rest of the test. The 240GB model saturates at around 2.7-2.8GB/s while the 480GB drives match the 1TB HP EX920 in delivering about 3.2GB/s.

Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write speed of the 240GB ADATA XPG SX8200 is substantially lower than the excellent performance that the larger capacity manages, but both capacities are meeting their advertised performance specifications.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

On the longer sequential write test, the 480GB SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 lose a bit of performance and drop slightly in the rankings, but the 240GB barely loses any performance. The drives are very competitive against other products from this generation, and put their predecessors to shame.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The SX8200 doesn't set any power efficiency records, but it remains close to the top of the chart. Total power consumption is similar to other NVMe SSDs, so the efficiency scores are mostly proportional to performance.

The SX8200 hits full sequential write speed at QD2, though for the 240GB model this is barely an increase over QD1 performance. Performance remains steady for the rest of the test, with no obvious signs of garbage collection stalling the SSD.

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance


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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now