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 Seagate BarraCuda SSD is broadly competitive with other TLC SATA drives on The Destroyer, with an average data rate that is clearly slower than the best an MLC drive can deliver but is almost identical to the mainstream Crucial MX500, and significantly higher than the Plextor M8V that pairs Toshiba's 3D TLC with a different controller.

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

The average and 99th percentile latencies from the Seagate BarraCuda are lower than any of the competing TLC SSDs, and reasonably close to the best we've measured from SATA drives in this capacity class.

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

The average read and write latencies from the BarraCuda are both among the best we've seen from TLC SATA SSDs, though other current-generation mainstream drives like the Crucial MX500 and Intel 545s aren't significantly behind. The average write latencies in particular vary little among top-tier SATA drives (MLC or TLC).

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

The 99th percentile read and write latencies show more variation between SATA drives than the averages, and here the Seagate BarraCuda continues to distinguish itself by taking the lead among TLC SATA drives, followed closely by the Intel 545s.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The Seagate BarraCuda's solid performance on The Destroyer comes at the cost of rather high energy usage, almost 40% higher than the Intel 545s that is slightly faster overall. The aging Phison S10 controller is probably the main culprit here, but the Plextor M8V with the same NAND but a Silicon Motion controller is also relatively inefficient on this test.

SLC Cache Sizes & SYSmark 2018 AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • seamonkey79 - Friday, December 07, 2018 - link

    The caddy would adapt an m.2 to a full 2.5" SATA socket, so you would have an m.2 in a chassis adapting it to 2.5" & classic SATA.

    That being said, I can't see that doing anything but increasing costs, though having one primary line to manufacture m.2 and the little bit of work needed to adapt an m.2 SATA drive to 2.5", it *could* see some benefit to the manufacturer.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, December 07, 2018 - link

    Huh? M.2 SATA doesn't overheat, that's M.2 NVME/PCIe (which is a bit more difficult to adapt to 2.5" SATA, so I don't care as much). 2.5" SATA drives already have tiny PCBs. They are already bottlenecked by the protocol. With them being M.2 in a 2.5" caddy, they can serve double purpose. I just bought an M.2 drive and a caddy for my Fujitsu T904 laptop, which still has only a 2.5" slot. But I know when that laptop is gone, I'm not gonna need a 2.5" drive. That M.2 drive can be converted into all kinds of useful devices, small desktops, laptops, USB thumb drive. It'd cost them a couple dozens of cents more to manufacture, would it'd be soo much more useful. :D Eventually, more people will use M.2 SATA than 2.5". At least those who buy standalone drives. Reply
  • CheapSushi - Saturday, December 08, 2018 - link

    Dragonstongue I don't think you really know what the OP is talking about, just how tiny the PCB seems to be on newer 2.5" SSDs, thus just being a whole lot of waste of space anyway and/or you don't realize adapters already exist and/or don't realize M.2 is just a formfactor and can be NVMe/PCIe or AHCI/SATA. There's always someone who confidently posts a "neg" at a suggestion without even knowing hardware much in the first place. Reply
  • dgingeri - Friday, December 07, 2018 - link

    When I was a systems admin for a server software test lab, we received a set (108) of 3TB Seagate Constellation ES.2 SAS drives for a new prototype appliance that would eventually become the DXi6900 series. I was pretty excited to see the new hardware come in, so I got things set up within a day.

    The test team wasn't ready to test for another week. In that week, we had 12 of those drives go bad. By two months into the project, every single Seagate drive had gone bad. (These are their enterprise level drives, which are supposed to have better reliability.) We ended up requesting a different brand drive from NetApp (the maker of the storage portion of the DXi6900) because of these problems. We replaced them with HGST 4TB drives, and didn't have a single one fail up to the point when I left over two years later.

    In the years leading up to that, I had bought several Seagate drives, including 4 1TB drives, 2 2TB drives, and one 3TB drive, and had the drive fail within warranty in EVERY SINGLE CASE. That was specifically why I quit buying them, and the 3TB drive is the last Seagate drive I am ever going to buy intentionally.

    This just might be a decent crive, and if Seagate were to put a concerted effort into improving their reliability, they might be something I'd consider. However, as things stand, Seagate and Toshiba are on my NEVER BUY list, along side Biostar, ECS, and Gigabyte.
    Reply
  • CheapSushi - Saturday, December 08, 2018 - link

    What does this have to do with SSDs at all? Seriously? This is just some overreaching rant saying that one specific type of product means that ALL their products are a problem. Especially about spinning rust several years old; even BackBlaze doesn't use those. Have you even bothered to look into reliability statistics/information on even consumer TLC drives? It's so odd to see people who claim to be in tech but are so antiquated in their knowledge. Reply
  • gglaw - Sunday, December 09, 2018 - link

    Quite a humorous post from someone with a supposed heavy tech/admin background but so short-sighted on the big picture. He lists a bad experience from a completely unrelated product line likely not even sharing manufacturing or R&D ties in any way making him ban products from some of the largest tech companies in the world with for the most part tremendous track records. Even if it is in "principle" for how the company leaders model their QC, all the executives making these decisions at the time of the archaic hard drive problems are likely working with other companies by now (pretty good chance for one of his "new" favorite companies). Similar to the comments on some of Samsung's early SSD fiascos banning all Samsung products "for life." And of course shortly after their fiascos, they quickly became essentially the world's benchmark for performance and reliability in this same product line lol. Reply
  • Donkey2008 - Thursday, December 13, 2018 - link

    108 enterprise-class hard drives failed in 2 months?

    [Insert Doubt meme]
    Reply
  • sarahkevin - Friday, December 07, 2018 - link

    thanks for sharing I really need this for my office. Reply
  • PeachNCream - Friday, December 07, 2018 - link

    I think I'd probably opt for a Crucial MX500 over a Seagate SSD. Seagate's reputation and my experiences with their mechanical drives make me reluctant about giving them yet another chance. Reply
  • Fujikoma - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link

    I feel the same way about Quantum SCSI drives. Not that Seagate rates much higher... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now