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

  • automator_devops - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    Looking forward to these being the first SSDs exhibiting the "click of death". Makes no sense I know, low quality humor. I actually do have a Seagate Archive 8TB in my case.
  • Donkey2008 - Thursday, December 13, 2018 - link

    If any manufacturer could accomplish this it would definitely be Seagate. They are the Hynix of hard drives - Mostly OEM, not reliable and shockingly still in business. I wouldn't buy anything from that company if my life depended on it.
  • Donkey2008 - Thursday, December 13, 2018 - link

    Oh, and I laughed when I first read your comment :-)
  • aylak - Friday, December 7, 2018 - link

    I owned several mechanical hard drives from Seagate and all of the failed at some point. I know it doesn't mean that their SSD drives will be as unreliable but it is funny that first thing came to my mind is this as I saw the title.
  • Alim345 - Saturday, December 8, 2018 - link

    There was one particularly unreliable series of those hard drives. Also HDD are not absolutely reliable and will inevitably fail after some time
  • Beaver M. - Wednesday, December 12, 2018 - link

    Indeed. Yet Seagate wasnt very good at that either. They had far higher failure rates than WD and even Samsung (which also werent great).
    But its good to see that this seems to have changed. At least with their bigger drives. They seem to be on par with WD now, but WD isnt as good as it was a few years ago. I guess this HDD cartel made them sloppy.
    Thats why I bought a Toshiba and HGST (shortly before they rebranded them as WD).
  • KAlmquist - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link

    When it was an independent company, Sandforce never demonstrated the ability to effectively test and debug their products. So the good think about Seagate going with a time-tested Toshiba controller is that it's possible to buy these drives and be confident that they will work correctly. If Seagate drops the price to the point where these drives represent a good value for the money, I would have no problem recommending them.
  • III-V - Sunday, December 9, 2018 - link

    Bit hard to read the article title on the front page -- white text on white photo doesn't really work!
  • Billy Tallis - Monday, December 10, 2018 - link

    There's supposed to be a partially transparent dark overlay at the bottom of the photo to serve as a background for the title text. Try re-loading the page, and if it still doesn't render, send us a bug report with a screenshot.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now