AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

On the Light test, all three capacities of the ADATA SU800 perform quite well when the test is run on an empty drive. The performance penalty from running the test on a full drive is still huge, though the 512GB SU800 doesn't fall behind all of its competition.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The smaller capacities of the SU800 have trouble keeping latency under control when full, but otherwise the average service times are normal for budget SSDs.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

The percentage of operations that require more than 10ms to complete shows us that the high average service times when full are due to a very high number of outliers, rather than just a uniform slowing of operations.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

Thanks to their good performance, the SU800s use less energy than most of the competition over the course of the light test, though the slightly slower Silicon Motion engineering sample with more overprovisioning and earlier firmware was a bit more efficient.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
POST A COMMENT

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • SaolDan - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    Neat!!! Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    Overall a worse deal than the MX300, which itself took quite some criticism. Could you elaborate on what's "neat" about this? Reply
  • vladx - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    Price is low for decent performance. This is SATA SSD targeted towards low end and mainstream market. Reply
  • Great_Scott - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    The MX300 is better value given the drive sizes. I'm still trying to find a replacement for the Mushkin Reactor for desktops, but the Crucial drive is my go-to for laptops currently. Reply
  • Arbie - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    Why do you guys continually fail to mention the Mushkin Reactor 1TB MLC drive ($240 at Newegg) in your SSD comparisons? It's cheaper, faster, and probably has greater endurance.

    You reviewed it two years ago but have hardly mentioned it since then. It seems to be a "best buy" still.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8949/mushkin-reactor...

    But... kudos on the clickbait. You have at least as much as any other site, and of the lowest degree.
    Reply
  • vladx - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    Because Mushkin already refreshed their SSD line and the old Reactor is not manufactured anymore which means it will be gone any week now. Reply
  • Great_Scott - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    And we will all be sad to see it go. I have a bunch of those drives, myself. Reply
  • Flunk - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    They don't often put 2 year old drives in comparisons. Reply
  • Great_Scott - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    That's too bad, as some context would be useful, especially considering that many people own that drive, and until recently it was still being made.

    Then again, a two-year-old budget drive with a very similar controller would have made the SU800 series look terrible, and we can't have that.
    Reply
  • eek2121 - Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - link

    The Mushkin Reactor is a drastically slower drive, costs about the same, and will soon disappear from retailers. It is not a competitor. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now