AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The Samsung 970 EVO Plus has the highest average data rates on the Light test, and even the 250GB Plus is faster than the 1TB original 970 EVO. Ignoring its predecessor, the 970 EVO Plus is more than 20% faster than the next fastest competitors. The lead isn't quite as pronounced when looking at full-drive performance, but the 970 EVO Plus is still on top.

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

The Samsung 970s turn in the best average and 99th percentile latency scores on the Light test, though the 250GB model's 99th percentile latency is strongly affected when the drive is full. Aside from that, the 250GB model's latency is not meaningfully higher than the 1TB model, and none of the other drives in that capacity class offer such low latency.

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

The 970 EVO Plus tops the charts for both average read and write latency scores from the Light test. The average write latency of the 250GB model does show that the smaller drive's performance suffers when the test is run on a full drive, but the other small TLC drives are all worse off.

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

The 970 EVO Plus is joined by several other drives in having 99th percentile write latencies under 100µs, but the 250GB model can't maintain that when the test is run on a full drive. The 99th percentile read latencies are great, but the full-drive read QoS for both capacities of the 970 EVO Plus is nothing special for this product segment.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The high performance of the 970 EVO Plus once again comes at the cost of power efficiency, with energy usage that is significantly above the competition and twice that of the WD Black SN750. The performance potential of the 970 EVO Plus is largely wasted on a workload this light, and that leads to wasted power.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • ikjadoon - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    Ah, wait. The 970 PRO isn't actually on Bench. I don't think it's been reviewed, right?
  • Kvaern1 - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    Completely not exciting. Don't care about a slight speed increase which no consumer is going to notice in the their daily use anyway. All that matters in the consumer NAND space at this point is bringing prices down, which is very unlikely to happen in a business with no real competition left, read cartel.
  • heffeque - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    Definitely would love to see 4 and above TB SSD drives at HDD prices (or less). Tech isn't there yet I guess.
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, January 23, 2019 - link

    Yeah, you're spot on. To be 100% honest, even a good ol' SATA Samsung 830 is good enough. I've used systems with fast nVME drives, as with "older" SATA SSDs, and I can pretty much say that the difference really isn't that noticeable in most use cases. But price is. Capacity is.
  • stoatwblr - Thursday, January 31, 2019 - link

    You might not notice the slowness of 830s, but I do. (840s are better, 850s are great)

    It all depends on what you're doing.
  • Mikewind Dale - Saturday, February 16, 2019 - link

    "is bringing prices down"

    Two years ago, I bought a 512 GB Kingston KC400 SATA drive for $160. Today, I can buy a 1 TB Intel 660p QLC NVMe for $125, or a 1TB WD Blue SATA for $125.

    So yeah, I'm pretty sure prices are falling. Maybe they're not falling 50% overnight, but falling 50% over two years is pretty darned nice.
  • RMSe17 - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    If not too difficult, would it be possible to add 970 Pro 1TB results for comparison?
  • kgardas - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    Random read @ Q1 and Q1/2/4 is still nearly the same like on SATA drives (MX500 as reference). Would be great if NVMe vendors would be able to push that to the speed of random write which is noticeable different from SATA. Anybody knows what's holding them back from it?
  • Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    Writes can be buffered in DRAM, but reads expose the real latency of NAND.
  • catavalon21 - Tuesday, January 22, 2019 - link

    Nice to see you pop in from time to time. You certainly burned the midnight oil on many an SSD review back in the day.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now