AnandTech Storage Bench 2013

Our Storage Bench 2013 focuses on worst-case multitasking and IO consistency. Similar to our earlier Storage Benches, the test is still application trace based - we record all IO requests made to a test system and play them back on the drive we are testing and run statistical analysis on the drive's responses. There are 49.8 million IO operations in total with 1583.0GB of reads and 875.6GB of writes. I'm not including the full description of the test for better readability, so make sure to read our Storage Bench 2013 introduction for the full details.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer
Workload Description Applications Used
Photo Sync/Editing Import images, edit, export Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe Lightroom 4, Dropbox
Gaming Download/install games, play games Steam, Deus Ex, Skyrim, Starcraft 2, BioShock Infinite
Virtualization Run/manage VM, use general apps inside VM VirtualBox
General Productivity Browse the web, manage local email, copy files, encrypt/decrypt files, backup system, download content, virus/malware scan Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware
Video Playback Copy and watch movies Windows 8
Application Development Compile projects, check out code, download code samples Visual Studio 2012

We are reporting two primary metrics with the Destroyer: average data rate in MB/s and average service time in microseconds. The former gives you an idea of the throughput of the drive during the time that it was running the test workload. This can be a very good indication of overall performance. What average data rate doesn't do a good job of is taking into account response time of very bursty (read: high queue depth) IO. By reporting average service time we heavily weigh latency for queued IOs. You'll note that this is a metric we have been reporting in our enterprise benchmarks for a while now. With the client tests maturing, the time was right for a little convergence.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

Quite surprisingly, the MX100 is slightly faster than the M550 in our 2013 Storage Bench. The differences are not significant, but it's still surprising given that M550 is supposed to be Crucial's higher performing drive. Especially at 256GB this is odd because the M550 has lower capacity NAND that should result in more parallelism and thus more performance, but that doesn't seem to be that case. I'm guessing that Crucial has been able to tweak the firmware to unleash more performance from the Marvell 9189 controller, which would explain why the MX100 is faster than the M550. Then again, the ADATA SP920 with 128Gbit NAND and Micron designed firmware is also faster than the 256GB M550, so it looks like M550 doesn't take full advantage of the lower capacity NAND.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Service Time)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench 2011
Comments Locked

50 Comments

View All Comments

  • sonny73n - Saturday, December 20, 2014 - link

    Samsung Evo comes to mind ;-)
  • MikeMurphy - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    330MB/s reads with zero random access penalty is ample for 99.99% of the users out there.

    There isn't much (or any) real world difference between this and something faster.
  • isa - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    Yes, I'd love to see a link to a $100 external SSD with 550MB/s at 95k IOPS.
  • UltraWide - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    Do you plan to include tests with encryption enabled in the future? Thank you.
  • Zoomer - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    And does it support bitlocker eDrive / OPAL, etc?
  • stickmansam - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    Dang those prices look good

    Makes me wish I had waited to grab the MX100 instead of getting the SP920

    Similar sustained performance but MX100 has better GC and consistency
  • nfriedly - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    Neither of the Samsung buttons work for the last chart on http://www.anandtech.com/show/8066/crucial-mx100-2...

    The error in the firebug console is "TypeError: document.getElementById(...) is null"
  • JarredWalton - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    Fixed, thanks!
  • MikeMurphy - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    Why are 4k random reads so much slower than 4k random writes? Or, are the graphs mislabeled and mixed up?
  • khkha - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link

    I have just bought seagate 600 for my early 2011 mbp. Should I return the drive and buy this instead for 30gb space bump?

    Thoughts anyone?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now