AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to 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. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

Our initial runs of the Heavy test on the Samsung 970 EVO produced results similar to the Samsung PM981, with the 1TB model showing worse performance on an empty drive than a full drive. This seems to be related to the secure erase process used to wipe the drive before the test. Like many drives, the 970 EVO seems to lie about when it has actually finished cleaning up. Adding an extra 10 minutes of idle time before launching the Heavy test produced the results seen here, and in the future all drives will be tested with longer pauses after erasing (all other drives were given at least two minutes of idle time after each erase).

With the odd behavior eliminated, the Samsung 970 EVO comes close to setting a new record on the Heavy test. The empty drive performance of the 1TB model is up in Optane territory, though the full drive average data rate is not much higher than other TLC-based drives. The 500GB model is far slower, and its full-drive performance doesn't even keep pace with the Intel SSD 760p.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the Samsung 970 EVO are about normal and in line with its closest competitors, except for the particularly good empty-drive score from the 1TB 970 EVO.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average write latency of the 970 EVO is fairly typical for a high-end NVMe SSD, but the average read latency of the 1TB 970 EVO in the best case is surprisingly quick. Both capacities show a larger than normal gap between empty and full drive performance, even after accounting for the fact that they are using TLC to compete against the best MLC drives.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency scores from both tested capacities of the 970 EVO show a big difference between full drive and empty drive performance. The 500GB drive's read QoS doesn't seem up to par, but the 1TB model's scores would look pretty good if the WD Black hadn't recently shown up with an MLC-like minimal performance loss when full. The 99th percentile write latency scores of the 970 EVO are good but not substantially better than the competition, and the 500GB model is clearly worse at keeping latency under control than the 1TB model or MLC drives of similar capacity.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The 500GB 970 EVO continues the trend of relatively poor power efficiency from the Samsung Phoenix controller, but the 1TB model in its best case of running the test on an empty drive is fast enough that its overall energy usage is comparable to good SATA drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light


View All Comments

  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, April 24, 2018 - link

    That's a lot of "meh" in terms of performance for the high price. Reply
  • Samus - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    I agree. It's basically tied with the WD Black in real world performance, but the WD Black sells for $70 less (500GB) or 40% less. That's pretty ridiculous. Reply
  • Reppiks - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    The problem with Black is the naming, when I look in Danish shops they list 800MB/s writes so I presume thats an earlier generation? That makes it really hard to know what your buying when they dont have a WD Black 1gen, 2gen etc Reply
  • moozooh - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    > The problem with Black is the naming
    That's racist.™
  • jtd871 - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    I seriously can't tell if you're trying to sound clever or infantile. Reply
  • peevee - Monday, April 30, 2018 - link

    He is succeeding at being funny. You have to be in the US context to understand why. Reply
  • azrael- - Thursday, April 26, 2018 - link

    You need to look specifically for "NVMe" as the new WD Black SSDs are postfixed "NVMe" instead of "PCIe". For instance, a search on the ProShop site yielded five drives for "wd black nvme" of which the three were postfixed "NVMe". These are the new ones and they are *considerably* more expensive. At least a 54% markup over the old versions. Reply
  • FullmetalTitan - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link

    Not sure where you are getting those price differentials from. WD Black and 970 EVO MSRPs are matched for every shared capacity. Reply
  • peevee - Monday, April 30, 2018 - link

    newegg 1TB m.2 SSD prices:
    Crucial MX500 (SATA) $250
    HP EX920 (NVMe PCIe x4) $360
    Intel 760p (NVMe PCIe x4 )$400
    WD Black (NVMe PCIe x4) $450
    Samsung 970 EVO (NVMe PCIe x4) $600.
    960 PRO $609.

    Sams prices obviously need to CRASH before they make any sense.
  • Samus - Thursday, July 12, 2018 - link

    WD Black 512GB NVMe had regularly sold for $150 on sale. Until the Samsung price drops in May, the EVO 970 500GB never sold under $200, and was regularely $220-$230.

    So my statement is 100% factual and correct as of the time or writing on April 25, and as of now:

    "WD Black sells for $70 less (500GB) or 40% less"

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now