Random Read Performance

Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random read speed of the Seagate BarraCuda is rather slow, both in comparison to the broad field of competing SSDs, and in comparison to the other drives that use Toshiba's 3D TLC: the Plextor M8V is 30% faster, and even the DRAMless Toshiba TR200 is 15% faster.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

On the longer random read test, the BarraCuda appropriately pulls ahead of the Toshiba TR200 but remains much slower than the other current-generation mainstream competitors.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The BarraCuda is among the most power-hungry drives on this test, leaving it with a very poor power efficiency rating. The best TLC SATA drives offer 50% better performance per Watt, and the Plextor M8V gets 16% better performance while drawing the same amount of power.

As queue depths increase, the BarraCuda stays a little bit slower than most mainstream TLC SSDs, and past QD16 it starts to level out with significantly slower random read performance than the competition. On the bright side, power consumption doesn't increase very quickly as queue depth grows, so the efficiency at high queue depths is no longer such a negative outlier.

Comparing the Seagate BarraCuda against our entire collection of SATA SSDs new and old, it's clear that the power efficiency could use some improvement but it's by no means the worst we've tested.

Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The Seagate BarraCuda disappoints on the burst random write test with QD1 performance that is well below that of many current and previous generation SSDs, including some DRAMless drives. The Plextor M8V is 36% faster on this test due to pairing the same Toshiba NAND with a more recent Silicon Motion controller rather than the Phison S10.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the longer random write test that involves some higher queue depths, the differences between mainstream SATA drives are smaller than at QD1 but the BarraCuda is still clearly below par. However, it is at least far faster than the DRAMless drives.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

Power consumption for the BarraCuda on this test is a bit high, so the efficiency score is again fairly low. Other current mainstream SATA SSDs offer at least 20% better performance per Watt. The Plextor M8V is 18% faster while drawing 12% less power, and that still isn't close to the best efficiency we're seeing from non-Toshiba 3D TLC.

Random write performance saturating at QD4 and higher is normal for SATA drives, but the performance level that the BarraCuda tops out at is well below what we expect from mainstream SSDs these days. The Plextor M8V delivers more performance at lower power levels across all queue depths, while using a 4-channel Silicon Motion controller instead of the 8-channel Phison S10 to manage the same Toshiba 3D TLC.

Comparing the Seagate BarraCuda against every SATA SSD that has completed this test, we again see that power consumption is substantially higher than the best drives out there, and the maximum random write performance attained falls far short of the best that a SATA drive can deliver.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • takeshi7 - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    "they bought controller designer SandForce right around when SandForce drives disappeared from the market for good."

    That's not strictly true. Seagate still use controllers based on SandForce for some of their enterprise SSDs. Look for DuraWrite Technology in their marketing materials to know which ones.
  • The_Assimilator - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    SandForce disappeared from the *consumer* market, to be precise. And it was all the more surprising because of how much they shaped the formative years of mainstream SSDs. Reading about the reasons behind that company's implosion in someone's autobiography is going to be interesting.
  • mikato - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    I would like to know this also. Did the top brains get hired away to somewhere else somehow right when Seagate bought them or what?
  • DanNeely - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    IIRC Rumor mill at the time was that their next gen controller wasn't competitive and unable to get the design wins they needed they ran out of money and got snapped up on the cheap.
  • Qasar - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce
  • Beaver M. - Wednesday, December 12, 2018 - link

    Nothing was surprising. Every expert knew they wouldnt last long with their focus on compressed performance and manufacturers promoting that without criticism.
    Many customers felt scammed when the controllers never delivered the performance they promised, because the real high numbers were only achievable with compressible content (who the hell has a 5 GB doc file?).

    In every forum experts told people not to buy Sandforce SSDs or memory sticks, because of that fact. That sealed their fate.
  • HighTech4US - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    Not competitive on price.

    $84.99 for the 500GB model.

    I just purchased on Dec 4th a brand new Intel 545s 2.5" 512GB SATA III 64-Layer 3D NAND Internal Solid State Drive SSD from Newegg for $34.99 (after $20 PayPal coupon)
  • Death666Angel - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    "after $20 PayPal coupon" So, Christmas offerings plus another coupon? Great comparison!
  • HighTech4US - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link

    So show me where I can get the this 500GB model for $54..99 then. That was what I paid pre-coupon for the 512GB Intel SSD.

    Like I said Seagate is not competitive on price.
  • Donkey2008 - Thursday, December 13, 2018 - link

    I used a $50 Amazon gift certificate to get my Samsung SSD for $4.99. Seagate will never beat that price.

    (sarcasm)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now