AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Trion 150 sustains a much higher average data rate over the course of The Destroyer than the Trion 100, and is one of the best-performing budget drives on this test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Average service time is improved over the Trion 100 for the 480GB and 960GB models, but the 240GB Trion 150 has regressed. They all still qualify as low-end but not horrible.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The number of high-latency outliers on has increased significantly at the 10ms threshold, but the situation at the 100ms threshold is mostly better for the Trion 150 than the Trion 100.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Energy usage on The Destroyer has improved noticeably, reflecting that the higher average data rate allowed the Trion 150 to complete the test in a shorter span of time than the Trion 100. The Trion 150 is a little more power-hungry than the ADATA SP550, but this is due to having slightly worse performance; the Trion 150 delivers comparable efficiency to the Silicon Motion-based SP550.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • Arnulf - Friday, April 01, 2016 - link

    So not only is this a low-end drive, it's an OCZ low-end drive.

    Thanks for the article and giving consumers heads-up so that we don't get burned!
  • Arnulf - Friday, April 01, 2016 - link

    Ugh, EDIT function pretty please ...

    So not only is this a low-end drive, it's an overpriced OCZ low-end drive.
  • close - Friday, April 01, 2016 - link

    I wouldn't call this a "burn" but it's definitely a warm beer after a hot summer day. Reply
  • LB-ID - Friday, April 01, 2016 - link

    <Wanders in, sees another OCZ drive review>
    <Reads the review, sees nothing has really changed>
    <Wanders out to buy from a reputable brand>
  • Samus - Saturday, April 02, 2016 - link

    I now feel like Toshiba is a Trojan horse, because all the OCZ drives that were in the buffer during bankruptcy and released after Toshiba initially bought them, in particular the exceptional ARC 100, were a sign they were turning things around.

    Then Toshiba releases this crap under the OCZ name. WTF are they thinking OCZ is a performance focused brand and these drives are clearly marketed at grandma's old Dell laptop.
  • xrror - Wednesday, April 06, 2016 - link

    Yea but I think Toshiba's plan was to use OCZ for ALL of their customer facing drives. Before they bought OCZ they simply didn't offer retail drives at all!

    As far as a Toshiba Trojan horse... Toshiba actually had a competent drive itself right before it bought OCZ.

    The Toshiba THNSNH drives were actually good (they don't bench awesome, but they're good) but since they were OEM only you've never heard of them. THNSNH was also a big jump from Toshiba's prior drives that seemed mostly made for industrial (performance wasn't great, but HDD wouldn't handle vibration/shock).

    Bonus that Toshiba kept OCZ's in development models, so you had the ARC series come out. (vs. something ... not so nice like continuing Octane). But those were Marvell (I think) based with Indilinx firmware? Nothing wrong at all with that, but I imagine Toshiba's shareholders would question why they weren't using native Toshiba tech...

    I'm actually really glad Toshiba of anyone (also, a surprise!) was able to snag the OCZ engineering team. Yea everyone loves to hate on OCZ, but OCZ really was the first company to so extremely aggressively bring SSD drives to the consumer market. Everyone likes to hate on Ryan Petersen but damnit, he really DID push to make SSD drives an affordable "thing" much MUCH sooner than just Intel alone would have.

    They had a really rough time pounding out the bugs with SandForce yes... but seriously - who could have predicted that? (no, SERIOUSLY - before the kneejerk reaction, imagine being in OCZ's development shoes - that had to be really tough cause each time they thought they had it fixed, and it was always something very subtle). I always find it interesting that everyone forgets that their Indilinx controllers just worked - but they weren't the "sexy" fastest.

    Saying that, I totally understand people who... after forking out their $600+ on a drive and having failure after RMA failure after "no this firmware really fixes it honest" failure upon failure would yea... swear off OCZ forever. But today's OCZ isn't that. Different time, place, era.

    This comment has gone way too long. And I've lost my point lol.

    And so you all don't think I'm a forgive and forget person. I'll never buy another Kingston product after the asshattery with the V300. When a company basically tells Anand himself to piss off when they bait and switch the NAND used...

    Hey, at least Ryan Peterson and OCZ back then was super responsive to Anand directly when they got ripped a new one ;)
  • xrror - Wednesday, April 06, 2016 - link

    Ugh, and I just realized I didn't address the part of using the OCZ name for non-performance parts.

    Basically, unless you're Samsung right now nobody is a performance part. And so that doesn't sound like a hipster "well, duh" answer - Samsung went crazy (awesome!) insane mad R&D into controllers and 3D NAND. Holy moly they even kicked Intel's butt enough so that Intel announces vaporware crosspoint memory.

    I mean, halo effect in SATA market at least is crazy! SanDisk has some very extremely competitive models in their high end - but because they're maybe 3% slower in some benchmarks? Nobody on the street cares. That's nuts.

    I dunno, I guess my point is that unless Toshiba/OCZ can somehow squeeze 12Gb/s through a SATA 3 link (I joke) they're not going to be able to market as a performance product these days.

    Actually, the killer solution I think is to make an SSD controller that is both power efficient and makes TLC NAND not suck (so much). And that's not easy. At all. Cause small process planar TLC really a physics nightmare. I mean that's taking crappy flash drive memory and getting it to perform. Not easy.
  • leexgx - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link

    maybe i been unlucky i had to many sandisk SSDs (3) and SD (more than 5) cards fail (failing as what is in my phone right now about to funny enough change it for a 32GB EVO+)

    i do wish they would make more SSDs like the BX100 its the most power effect SSD i have ever seen (the BX200 and MX200 the very bad) BX100 is not very fast for a SSD but in laptops its very low power
  • jasonelmore - Saturday, April 02, 2016 - link

    Still mad about that OCZ rebate scandal i see. Reply
  • Leyawiin - Sunday, April 03, 2016 - link

    No, its a Toshiba low end. Do try and keep up. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now