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)

Neither capacity of the Samsung 860 QVO can keep pace with the mainstream TLC drives on the write-intensive Heavy test, but they both outperform the DRAMless TLC drive. The NVMe+QLC drives from Intel and Micron fare much better when the test is run on an empty drive, but when full they too fall behind the mainstream TLC SSDs.

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

The Samsung 860 QVOs have much worse latency scores than the mainstream TLC drives, and the 99th percentile latency is much worse than even the DRAMless TLC SSD. However, the Samsung QLC drives are a bit better than the Intel/Micron QLC drives at keeping latency under control when the test is run on a full drive.

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

The average read latencies from the Samsung 860 QVOs are only a bit higher than the mainstream TLC drives, but the average write latencies stand out as worse by at least a factor of two.

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

The 99th percentile read and write latency scores from the 860 QVOs are poor, but they at least avoid the horrific write QoS issues that the Toshiba TR200 shows, and are better than the full-drive run on the Crucial P1.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The Samsung 860 QVO uses substantially more energy over the course of the Heavy test than the other SATA drives, and more than the the NVMe QLC drives in most cases, too.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light


View All Comments

  • Impulses - Thursday, November 29, 2018 - link

    Bleh, googling revealed that WAS on Amazon... It never triggered my price alerts, hrm, even tho it's definitely showing on Camelcamel's price history now, weird. Maybe I glossed over it entirely, oh well. Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Thursday, November 29, 2018 - link Reply
  • hojnikb - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link


    Can you do a data retention test ? Like writing the drive with data (H2testw seems to be the pick of the bunch) and disconnecting it. I'm interested how data retention holds up over time.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link

    Don't use SSDs for cold storage. Testing this is absurdly stupid and a waste of a reviewers time.

    Disconnect drive for 10 days: Replug it in and verify data's still all there. Yep.
    Disconnect drive for 15 days: Replug it in and verify data's still all there. Yep.
    Disconnect drive for 20 days: Replug it in and verify data's still all there. Yep.
    (We're already at 45 days, or 1.5 months, and chances are the data's still all there, are you getting how and why this kind of testing is stupid?)
    By the time you get to sufficiently long enough time periods to see some change in data you'd have wasted over a year trying to find a time period (within 5 days) where you know the drive will start losing data. This is just as absurd as asking reviewers to test NAND flash endurance by hammering the drive 24/7 for years until it dies. By the time it DOES die something better will have already arrived on the market. And disregarding all that, testing with a sample size of ONE is not indicative of any relevant performance characteristics for your ONE drive.

    If you want to use cold storage backups, either use a mechanical hard drive, a tape drive, or invest in cloud storage and encrypt your data before uploading it.

    Testing the cold storage capabilities of a sample size of ONE QLC SSD does nothing but prove that it's a less satisfactory use case for the technology than using a mechanical hard drive.
  • HollyDOL - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link

    I _think_ you can find Google or Facebook statistics on their SSDs, error rate etc. in representative volumes. But ofc it is enterprise grade hardware. Reply
  • hojnikb - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    Not for QLC. Reply
  • hojnikb - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    You're not thinking very far. As QLC is very cheap, it will be used in likes of flash drives, SD cards and portable SSDs. With these, it's not expected for them to be powerred at all time and in the case of sd cards and flash drives, it's not likely controller would do any kind of data rewritting.

    So this is very much a relavant test, that might give us ideas on how it performs. And no, you don't have to wait a year to see something; data curruption can be presented a lot sooner if from of read error and slower read speed in general. A more extreme approach is to heat the drive, which accelarates the process.
  • eddieobscurant - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link

    Horrible performance by samsung 64 layer qlc nand. Way slower than intel's/micron's . Especially the 4k random reads are slower than my first ssd 10 years ago, the intel x-25m.

    In order for samsung 860 qvo to make sense, it should be priced below 0.10$/gb
  • stargazera5 - Tuesday, November 27, 2018 - link

    Great, now that we have QLC down, we can move on to PLC (5 bits per cell) and 1 drive write per week. Reply
  • CheapSushi - Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - link

    And from the current trend, it still won't be much cheaper. =P Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now