Comparing Two 1TB NVMe Drives with Same NAND, Same Controller: XPG SX8200 Pro vs HP EX950
by Billy Tallis on February 6, 2019 11:30 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
The ADATA SX8200 Pro and HP EX950 provide top-tier performance on our mixed random I/O test, just shy of the Samsung 970 EVO Plus. The 2TB EX950 has almost identical overall performance to the 1TB models.
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W |
The power efficiency of the ADATA SX8200 Pro isn't quite as good as the Toshiba XG6 or WD Black SN750, but it's well ahead of the rest of the flash-based SSDs, including the HP EX950.
Compared to their predecessors and most of the competition, the SX8200 Pro and EX950 offer better performance during the read-heavy half of the test. The 970 EVO Plus pulls ahead during the write-heavy half of the test, which is generally faster anyways since write operations can be cached and combined. The Toshiba XG6 and WD Black SN750 that are more efficient than the SX8200 Pro are slower during every phase of the test except for the final segment with pure writes.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
The SM2262EN drives provide great performance on the mixed sequential I/O test, but the Samsung 970 EVO Plus maintains a clear lead, and the 2TB HP EX950 is back to being slower than the 1TB models.
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W | Average Power in W |
The 1TB ADATA SX8200 Pro just barely provides top-tier power efficiency on the mixed sequential I/O test, but the handful of drives that score better include most of the important competition: the latest from Samsung, WD, Toshiba and Phison.
The 2TB HP EX950 is slower than the 1TB model throughout the test, except for the pure read and write segments at either end. The 1TB SX8200 Pro and EX950 outperform their predecessors by an increasingly large margin as the workload becomes more write-heavy. The Samsung 970 EVO Plus that turns in the fastest overall performance runs up the score during the read-heavy half of the test but is no faster than the SM2262EN drives during the write-heavy half.
42 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
I can't help wondering how some of the old favourites would behave in these comparisons, the 950 EVO/Pro, 960s, etc. Have things really moved on that much?Billy Tallis - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
We have at least partial test results in Bench for most of the old drives that aren't worth including in every review: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2219?vs=23...eddieobscurant - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
It's not about crystal disk mark score. It's about almost no one of the everyday user, playing games, surfing the web and using microsoft office, will come near your "light" test, let alone "heavy" or "torture".Most of them need high random reads for their computer to feel snappy and responsive, and a big enough a slc cache to accommodate a full bluray of writes.
Billy Tallis - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
"Most of them need high random reads for their computer to feel snappy and responsive,"They already have that. Further increases to random read performance won't make the system feel any more responsive during light workloads, as demonstrated by SYSmark. High-end NVMe SSDs are already way past the point of diminishing returns for peak random read speeds, especially for lighter workloads where a few GB of DRAM used by the OS for caching is enough to almost completely decouple storage performance from application responsiveness.
eddieobscurant - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
So, you're saying that optane doesn't feel more responsive to you, or that the high random reads of optane isn't responsible for feeling more responsive than a high end nvme ssd ?Dark_wizzie - Wednesday, February 6, 2019 - link
Why does perf drop on 2tb model?Dark_wizzie - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
For low qd random reads, sorry.Dark_wizzie - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
And... serves me right for commenting before finishing the last page of the article. >.>oh well.
GreenReaper - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
Grabbed an MX500 500GB at Christmas. It's half the price of those tested here, and uses up a spare SATA. Hardly the fastest SSD in the world, but for most purposes it's hard to tell the difference.mapesdhs - Thursday, February 7, 2019 - link
They do seem to be well priced, though I bagged several barely used 850 Pro 512GB units for about the same cost, people seem to be selling them for silly money these days, grud knows why. The 840 Pro is also still very good, one of the most reliable SATA SSDs ever made.