AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

The Light trace is designed to be an accurate illustration of basic usage. It's basically a subset of the Heavy trace, but we've left out some workloads to reduce the writes and make it more read intensive in general. Please refer to this article for full details of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

It's been common knowledge for quite some time that for light client workloads, the differences between SATA SSDs are mostly negligible and the SX930 doesn't change the story. It's a decent performer, but can't offer any advantage over its alternatives. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The SX930 is quite power efficient, although it can't challenge the BX100 in this area.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    We'll just pretend that the 840 EVO had not been heavily hyped by commentators like you all over the net for quite a long time as well as by review sites. We will also just pretend that it did not have very heavy sales figures. Instead because Samsung put out with a new drive that you want to push we will just pretend that anyone who bought the previous generation drives were idiots.
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    Plus, it was Samsung who decided to stick with the EVO name.
  • sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    @Oxford Guy,

    I couldn't agree more with you. Thank you for explaining things clearer than I ever could have.
  • sonny73n - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    @Stochastic

    840 EVO sequential read at ~100MB/s. My 5900RPM Seagate 2TB HDD is at ~135MB/s. Lol
  • leexgx - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    what about random data speeds (as that's more the problem with HDDS)
  • sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    What about a product that doesn't meet advertised specs? "Fool me once, shame on you..." I'll make sure the second line of that saying won't apply to me.
  • leexgx - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    if you're using a 840 EVO you can update the firmware to restore the drive to more so normal performance (unless your on linux or OSX then best not) even so without the firmware update compared to a HDD the 840 evo SSD is overall faster
  • sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    By the way, I'm still rocking my i5-2500K system OCed @4.5GHz. I always had an SSD for boot drive (C:) and 2 HDD drives for storage since the beginning. Why should there be problems with the HDDs as they're just storage drives? Damn why did I feel the urge to explain to a 5th grader?
  • bill.rookard - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    I was never crazy about the TLC premise either. I prefer the 830's for boot drives since they're very reliable and have a more proven track record. I think the 850's with the 3D NAND should be pretty durable as well. In my servers I have the Crucial MX100's (a pair of 256Gs - one for data, one for sync, but -not- raided) and they're solid drives and have not had a single spot of trouble with those.
  • fokka - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    after the 840 evo fiasko i'm reluctant to put my trust in samsung, especially when there are perfectly capable, performant and affordable SSDs like the bx100 available. 3d nand is nice and all, but for me crucial just seems like the safer bet right now.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now