AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionately more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill modern SSDs, so performance should never drop all the way down to the steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

For the Heavy test, we see a bit of a trend of the heatsink having a very slight negative impact on performance. The 256GB drive reverses the trend when looking at the number of outliers, and the disparity for the 512GB drive appears larger than for the previous test, but we're only looking at a difference of a few hundred operations out of an hour-long test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Comments Locked

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ryan Smith - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    That is actually correct. The drives are more consistent when they thermally throttle because the controller has plenty of time to catch up. Whereas with a heatsink they're running at full tilt, and sometimes the controller has trouble keeping things consistent.
  • tipoo - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    Huh, interesting.
  • tipoo - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    So why is the scenario the exact flip on the 256GB drive? Did it just finish the test sooner?
  • Billy Tallis - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    During thermal throttling, the 256GB was occasionally stuttering and dropping from 6k IOPS to 2k IOPS. That tanked the consistency score. The 512GB's performance regulation when thermally throttled was basically perfect—during steady state it never deviated from ~6k IOPS.
  • Magichands8 - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    I really don't get why so many people seem to love M.2 so much. Sure it's convenient for laptops but for just about anything else it's a severely limited form factor restricting capacity and adding heat issues while eating up precious expansion slot space on the motherboard. What I'd really like to see are U.2 SSDs with 10 times the capacity.
  • nwarawa - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    The performance is obvious plateauing with that heatsink, so it begs the question: what is good enough? I assume it's just the controller that needs to be cooled. Would one of those tiny chipset heatsinks with some thermal tape still see most, if not all, the benefit of this Angelbird heatsink?
  • Billy Tallis - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    Given sufficient airflow, I think one of those small heatsinks could get the job done. I don't think most M.2 slots or adapters put the drive in a position to receive that much airflow unless your case is already a serious wind tunnel.
  • damianrobertjones - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    "The M.2 form factor has quickly established itself as the most popular choice for PCIe SSDs in the consumer space. "

    How do you know this? I'd still rather buy a 950 Pro 2.5" than an M.2. (I do own both though)
  • moozooh - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    "PCIe to M.2 adapter"
    Shouldn't it be "M.2 to PCIe adapter"? Since, you know, it adapts an M.2 device to a PCIe slot but not the opposite.
  • Billy Tallis - Monday, December 21, 2015 - link

    I was looking at it as making a PCIe slot into an M.2 slot into which you'd insert the drive, as opposed to thinking of it as something modifying the drive. I can see how a consumer pairing it with a particular drive would take the other perspective, but to me the adapter is the permanent part of the testbed and the drives are transient occupants.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now