Mixed Random Performance

Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

The mixed random I/O performance of the ADATA XPG SX8200 and GAMMIX S11 is a little bit slower than the fastest flash-based SSDs, but is still quite fast, especially given the lower drive capacities.

Sustained 4kB Mixed Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The power efficiency of the SX8200 is about par, a product of above-average performance combined with slightly above average power draw.

The ADATA XPG SX8200's performance during the mixed random I/O test starts off fairly flat with little impact from a few writes being added to the mix. As the portion of writes increases, the SX8200's performance accelerated to end up with very good performance near the end of the test. However, in the final phase when the workload shifts to pure writes, the SX8200 doesn't show as pronounced a spike in performance as is typical for high-end SSDs.

Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

The SM2262 drives including the newer generation from ADATA cannot quite match the performance of the best from Samsung or WD on the mixed sequential workload test, but they otherwise perform quite well for their capacity, and are about twice as fast as the older SX8000.

Sustained 128kB Mixed Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The average power consumption of the SX8200 during the mixed sequential I/O test is rather high at about 4W compared to 3W for the preceding generation drives. However, the performance increase is more than enough to justify the power increase, and overall power efficiency is pretty good.

The performance of the SX8200 during the mixed sequential I/O test exhibits a classic bathtub curve, with a steep decline as writes are first introduced, very flat performance through the middle of the test with a minimum in the 7-800 MB/s range, and a bit of a performance rebound at the end of the test. Most other drives in this class aren't quite as consistent through the middle of the test and tend to continue slowly losing performance until turning around in the second half.

Sequential Performance Power Management


View All Comments

  • stanleyipkiss - Wednesday, July 25, 2018 - link

    I.... I... I want one! Reply
  • superunknown98 - Wednesday, July 25, 2018 - link

    Yeah, what is the deal with the Intel 760p? is there a firmware that fixes it? Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Wednesday, July 25, 2018 - link

    There hasn't been a firmware update for the 760p yet: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/ar... Reply
  • Rick F - Wednesday, July 25, 2018 - link

    Thank you. This helped me avoid two different mistakes buying an M.2 for an Asrock x370 Taichi, All of the nonworking Adata's are on the QVL, along with the 8200 that works.

    The 8200 read speed is comparable to Samsung, but the write speed is about half as fast as Samsung. For the cost the 8200 is much more affordable for PCIe 3.0 nvme 1.3.

    So now what to do...a few years ago, B+M M.2 Sata was pretty standard. PCIe was Samsung only and cost too much. Now M.2 is in transition and not so easy.

    Think I'll sleep on it, and choose a lot of Sata space, or M.2 with a controller that hasn't gone through the wear leveling of an ssd yet...Again thanks for the heads up.
  • CheapSushi - Wednesday, July 25, 2018 - link

    This just makes me want the Intel 900P even more. I'm hoping to have Optane drives for performance, cache and main programs & OS and just use QLC NAND drives for storage. Reply
  • Amandtec - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    How about run Fuzedrive with 2GB ramdrive, 32GB Optane, 256QLC and 4+TB HDD. Everything should kind of work out quite nicely (unless you mostly access very large files only once). Reply
  • deil - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    that's my plan, I just want to use 58 GB optane drive, and maybe 512GB mv500 SSD. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    I guess some people, including me, want to KISS regarding their PC storage tiers. How are the failure states when it comes to the Fuzedrive implementation? Is it all just cached on the faster stuff and backed up on the normal HDD, so a drive failure "in front" isn't catastrophic? I'm personally super fine with my M.2 NVME SSD (960 Evo on sale) as an OS drive and a spinning platter for other stuff on my main PC (soon to be replaced with a M.2 SATA / NVME SSD depending on motherboard upgrades) and a whole bunch of HDDs in my file server. I don't see a scenario where I need optane like performance just yet. And for the Fuzedrive thing, see above, plus I don't need simple documents or pictures loading faster, they load just fine for my taste. :) Avoids all the potential headaches of another layer of software between me an my data. Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Thursday, July 26, 2018 - link

    With FuzeDrive, if either drive fails, you lose all data. Similar to RAID 0. Reply
  • Samus - Friday, July 27, 2018 - link

    Backblaze is $50 a year. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now