Random Read/Write Speed

The four corners of SSD performance are as follows: random read, random write, sequential read and sequential write speed. Random accesses are generally small in size, while sequential accesses tend to be larger and thus we have the four Iometer tests we use in all of our reviews.

Our first test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time. We use both standard pseudo randomly generated data for each write as well as fully random data to show you both the maximum and minimum performance offered by SandForce based drives in these tests. The average performance of SF drives will likely be somewhere in between the two values for each drive you see in the graphs. For an understanding of why this matters, read our original SandForce article.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Read (4K Aligned)

Random read performance is typical SandForce. The SSD320 comes in slightly slower, but the difference is a mere 3.9MB/s compared to SSD720.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (4K Aligned) - 8GB LBA Space

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (8GB LBA Space QD=32)

Same story with random write speed; the SSD720 performs hand in hand with Corsair's Force GS (except in QD32 test with compressible data, but Corsair had some issues with that particular aspect), though this is hardly a surprise given that they use identical NAND and the same stock firmware from SandForce. Due to SandForce's real-time compression, the slower NAND in SSD320 only shows up when the data is fed with incompressible data -- with compressible data the SF-2281 writes so little to the NAND that something else becomes a bottleneck even with asynchronous NAND.

Sequential Read/Write Speed

To measure sequential performance I ran a 1 minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read (4K Aligned)

Moving to sequential tests, the SSD720 offers marginally faster write performance than the SSD720.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write (4K Aligned)

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Performance

The AS-SSD sequential benchmark uses incompressible data for all of its transfers. The result is a pretty big reduction in sequential write speed on SandForce based controllers.

Incompressible Sequential Read Performance - AS-SSD

Asynchronous NAND has an enormous impact on incompressible sequential read speed as you can see above. The SSD320 and OCZ's Agility 3, another async NAND based SandForce SSD, perform poorly in this test. It's not a bug or error in our testing as I checked the product specs for the SSD320 and they specified that the maximum read speed for AS-SSD is 220MB/s. When using slower NAND, the performance will be handicapped in scenarios where the NAND is the bottleneck. In this case, the controller and SATA 6Gbps bus are capable of faster throughput but the NAND can't keep up. I believe SandForce's compression adds some overhead as well because the data has to be decompressed -- the Agility 4 with no compression is faster even though it's using async NAND as well.

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance - AS-SSD

The Drives and Transcend's SSD Toolbox Performance vs. Transfer Size
Comments Locked

34 Comments

View All Comments

  • paul878 - Friday, January 25, 2013 - link

    For a second I thought they were 320G and 720G drives.
  • Azurael - Friday, January 25, 2013 - link

    So what's the difference between a Sandisk Extreme SSD and a Transcend SSD720? How many more identical SSDs can the market support?
  • Flying Goat - Friday, January 25, 2013 - link

    If you tried to skip the drives over a lake, you'd find that one was most likely designed with aerodynamics in mind, while the other was not. Sadly, we're just never going to see the sort of truly complete feature comparison at AnandTech that covers that sort of thing. :)
  • gammaray - Friday, January 25, 2013 - link

    i dont know, but i got the SanDisk extreme 240gb home and its ultra fast and paid 160$ on sale for it :D
  • embzyk - Sunday, January 27, 2013 - link

    9.5mm vs 7mm height
  • Egg - Friday, January 25, 2013 - link

    The Transcend SSD720 256GB achieves a busy time of just over half that of the Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB, and it's missing a decimal place.

    This seems highly suspect.
  • Kristian Vättö - Saturday, January 26, 2013 - link

    Oh, you're right, there was a typo. It should've been 362 instead of 162. Fixed! :-)
  • iwod - Friday, January 25, 2013 - link

    SSD
    1st Gen - SATA ; Response Time Reduction Compared to HDD
    2nd Gen - SATA II; Higher Seq Read Write
    3rd Gen - SATA II; Better Random IO
    4th Gen - SATA III; Overall Improvement to both Seq and Random

    5th Gen? I think Next Gen we need SATA Express and something similar to Intel's Consistent I/O Performance.
  • Tech-Curious - Saturday, January 26, 2013 - link

    Eh, there's still a fair amount of head room on the SATA 3 interface. Wouldn't expect PCIe to become the norm for at least another two generations.
  • Tech-Curious - Saturday, January 26, 2013 - link

    Sorry, misread your comment, iwod. Still, even if sequential speeds remain more or less stagnant, there's a lot of room left to improve random read/write with SATA 3.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now