Random Write Performance

The random write test is confined to a 16GB portion of the drive, which is otherwise empty. This allows the drive to demonstrate much higher performance than on our performance consistency test that fills the drive. Tasks like installing software updates can modify a lot of files, but aren't hitting the entire disk. Random writes to the entire disk are usually found only in enterprise workloads such as large databases.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write

The 950 Pro's random write speeds aren't benefiting at all from the PCIe interface or the NVMe protocol, and are about 20% slower than the SM951. Since it's happening to both drives it probably isn't a thermal issue, so this may be the result of a firmware change. Still, the Intel SSD 750 is the only retail drive that significantly outperforms the tightly clustered competition.

Iometer - 4KB Random Write (Power)

The higher power consumption during the random write test is a problem, since it's not buying any extra performance.

Samsung 950 Pro 256GB

After increasing significantly from QD1 to QD2, performance and power drop slightly and stay flat for most of the rest of the test. At the very end, a slight drop in power for the 512GB and a more significant drop for the 256GB may indicate a change in what background processing is going on; the drive may be postponing some garbage collection during the onslaught of writes at the maximum queue depth, or it may be a coincidental case of the background processing catching up and throttling back near the end of the test.

Random Read Performance

Our random read performance test is conducted on a full drive and tests queue depths from 1 to 32. We focus primarily on the lower queue depths that are typical of interactive use, but also look at how the performance and power scales to more intensive loads. For desktop use, searching and virus scanning are typically the biggest sources of random reads, and they can exercise some of the larger queue depths.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read

The strong random read performance of the 950 Pro provides great justification for its status as the a flagship drive for the consumer market.

Iometer - 4KB Random Read (Power)

The 950 Pro's power consumption is moderately higher but nowhere close to being proprotional to the performance advantage; the 950 Pro doesn't have to run hot to offer great performance.

Samsung 950 Pro 256GB

Power and performance scaling look very typical here, except I had to expand the performance axis for the 950 Pro. Both drives pass SATA's limits at or before QD16.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
Comments Locked

142 Comments

View All Comments

  • bill.rookard - Sunday, October 25, 2015 - link

    VERY interesting. Of particular note is the Crucial MX200 - an older drive, and connected via SATA which trades blows back and forth with the newer PCIe - nvme based drives. Wow, good stuff.
  • Deders - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    I think it was only PCIe drives that had long booting times like the Intel 750.
  • Gigaplex - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    These are PCIe drives.
  • Deders - Friday, October 23, 2015 - link

    I mean slotted drives as the drive controller has to load from the device
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    I have a 256GB 950 PRO in my system (AsRock Z170 Extreme 7) and boot time is about 8 seconds with ultra fast boot enabled in BIOS/UEFI.
  • Jacerie - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    Why would you go on about how awesome Skylake and the 100 series chipset are for PCIe connected drives and then use a Haswell chip and a Z97 board for the test rig? Time to go back to the bench.
  • Billy Tallis - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    The Haswell system is what I've got on hand to test with, and it's what allows my results to be directly comparable with the reviews from earlier this year.

    Skylake gives you PCIe 3 from the PCH, but on the testbed we always use an x16 slot directly off the CPU for PCIe SSDs, so we don't need Skylake to run the drive at PCIe 3 speeds.
  • Jacerie - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    Will you be posting a follow-up to highlight any controller differences with the newer hardware?
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    This is not a SATA controller we're talking about, it's PCIe. And there we have hardly seen any differences between different implementations over the years.
  • hansmuff - Thursday, October 22, 2015 - link

    May I humbly request an addition to the review to show performance AND issues when using a PCI Express 2.0 to M.2 adapter on an older platform like the P67A?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now