AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance.

AnandTech Storage Bench - 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

The table above describes the workloads of The Destroyer in a bit more detail. Most of the workloads are run independently in the trace, but obviously there are various operations (such as backups) in the background. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer - Specs
Reads 38.83 million
Writes 10.98 million
Total IO Operations 49.8 million
Total GB Read 1583.02 GB
Total GB Written 875.62 GB
Average Queue Depth ~5.5
Focus Worst case multitasking, IO consistency

The name Destroyer comes from the sheer fact that the trace contains nearly 50 million IO operations. That's enough IO operations to effectively put the drive into steady-state and give an idea of the performance in worst case multitasking scenarios. About 67% of the IOs are sequential in nature with the rest ranging from pseudo-random to fully random. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer - IO Breakdown
IO Size <4KB 4KB 8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB
% of Total 6.0% 26.2% 3.1% 2.4% 1.7% 38.4% 18.0%

I've included a breakdown of the IOs in the table above, which accounts for 95.8% of total IOs in the trace. The leftover IO sizes are relatively rare in between sizes that don't have a significant (>1%) share on their own. Over a half of the transfers are large IOs with one fourth being 4KB in size.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer - QD Breakdown
Queue Depth 1 2 3 4-5 6-10 11-20 21-32 >32
% of Total 50.0% 21.9% 4.1% 5.7% 8.8% 6.0% 2.1% 1.4

Despite the average queue depth of 5.5, a half of the IOs happen at queue depth of one and scenarios where the queue depths is higher than 10 are rather infrequent. 

The two key metrics I'm reporting haven't changed and I'll continue to report both data rate and latency because the two have slightly different focuses. Data rate measures the speed of the data transfer, so it emphasizes large IOs that simply account for a much larger share when looking at the total amount of data. Latency, on the other hand, ignores the IO size, so all IOs are given the same weight in the calculation. Both metrics are useful, although in terms of system responsiveness I think the latency is more critical. As a result, I'm also reporting two new stats that provide us a very good insight to high latency IOs by reporting the share of >10ms and >100ms IOs as a percentage of the total.

I'm also reporting the total power consumed during the trace, which gives us good insight into the drive's power consumption under different workloads. It's better than average power consumption in the sense that it also takes performance into account because a faster completion time will result in less watt-hours consumed. Since the idle times of the trace have been truncated for faster playback, the number doesn't fully address the impact of idle power consumption, but nevertheless the metric is valuable when it comes active power consumption. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The pausing issue of the 1TB 850 EVO mSATA also translates straight to our The Destroyer trace. While higher capacities are usually faster than smaller capacities in this test, the 1TB mSATA is about 15% slower than the 500GB M.2. Generally speaking the 850 EVO does very well at 500GB and above, but since Samsung's TLC V-NAND is 128Gbit in capacity and single-plane, the 250GB can't keep up with drives that are using smaller capacity NAND for higher parallelism.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The latency graph further illustrates the poor performance of the 1TB mSATA, but quite surprisingly the 500GB 850 EVO is actually faster than the 512GB 850 Pro. I suspect the additional over-provisioning helps because The Destroyer is a very intensive trace that practically puts the drive into steady-state .

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The share of high latency IOs is a bit high, but nothing to be concerned of. Only the 250GB model has a significant amount of >10ms IOs and for IO intensive workloads I would strongly advise to go with 500GB or higher. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Active power consumption seems to be quite high for the 850 EVO, although I'm not surprised since TLC generally consumes more power than MLC due to its inherent design (more program pulses needed to achieve the final voltage state). 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • WackyDan - Saturday, April 4, 2015 - link

    Eh... Nope. These won't work in the ThinkPads. Reply
  • blanarahul - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Hopefully, this drive will put an end to the mSATA/M.2 versions of the 840 non-EVO that companies are shipping in their laptops. Reply
  • Samus - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    DoH! I just paid $20 more for the M550 (basically the MX100) 512GB M2 drive, which is double-sided and needs to be crammed into my laptop :\ Reply
  • kgh00007 - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Hey, is there any chance you could fill one of these m.2 drives with data, power it off for a month then check the read speeds when you power it back on?

    I need some sort of evidence that this TLC V-nand does not have the same issues as the TLC in the 840 EVO.
    Otherwise I'm not going to be able to buy one of these!

  • goodyes - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    What the hell does not the charts compares with 840 ev msata ? Bad numbers Why not true sequential test ??
    And this site posting SUCKS, Why in the world I cannot use my facebook or so login, Did you know about disquss ? Get out the absurd captcha that fucking me 30 times or so trying to get a magical potion to know what the words saying,. THIS IS NOT ADVANCE IN TECH THIS IS TRASH
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    This is the third review with the new 2015 SSD Suite and I've only had limited time to test drives, hence the lack of 840 EVO in the graphs. Reply
  • goodyes - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    Ya, but results that I have a 1TB 840 msata and write sequential at more than 500MBps around 520max MBps, and now I see than new 850 msata tops at ?? 480MBps ?? cannot be possible what my eyes look, AND WHY THE HELL NO ONE REVIEWER COMPARE With olders 840 msata, so I must think that all of you guys are a paid reviewers and you get money from samsung, if not, YOU MUST compare to older model Reply
  • cgorange - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    Other than providing samples, I can assure you that Samsung doesn't pay Anandtech to review its products Reply
  • Ekitrak - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    The Final Words page has 2 entries of "Samsung 840 EVO mSATA" on the Amazon Price Comparison. I'm guessing this is an error and one of them is supposed to be the Sata III version? Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    I'm not seeing this -- maybe you accidentally mixed up the 850 EVO mSATA and 840 EVO mSATA as they are both in the table (or maybe this was already fixed by another editor). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now