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, 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. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The WD Black SN750 improves slightly over its predecessor on The Destroyer, setting a new record for the highest average data rate from a TLC-based SSD.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The SN750 has slightly lower average latency on The Destroyer than its predecessor, but the Phison E12-based Corsair MP510 is in the lead among flash-based SSDs. The MP510 and both the current and previous WD Black are essentially tied for 99th percentile latency.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The SN750 improves on both average read and write latency scores, but the Corsair MP510 has a much better average write latency on The Destroyer than the WD Black or even the Intel Optane 900P.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read and write latency scores for the SN750 are essentially unchanged from the previous WD Black, leaving it with one of the best QoS scores for reads but a score for writes that is worse than several of last year's TLC-based competitors.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The total energy consumption of the new WD Black over the course of The Destroyer is about 4% lower than its predecessor, further increasing WD's lead in NVMe power efficiency.

SLC Cache Sizes & SYSmark 2018 AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • nevcairiel - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Whatever happend to the Samsung PRO in those comparisons? If you call something a "top NVMe SSD" and then don't have the PROs in there to stack up against, it feels incomplete. Reply
  • jordanclock - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Where do you see that they call it the top NVMe SSD?

    Comparing it to the 970PRO doesn't make a lot of sense since they are in vastly different price ranges and market segment. The 970 EVO is perfect because they are very close in price and market segment. They even admit in the conclusion that the "970 EVO may be the slightly better performer overall."
    Reply
  • Drakkhen - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    He didn't call it the top NVMe SSD, he said a "top NVMe SSD".

    But, I agree that it isn't really relevant since this comparison is for a different price point/market.
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    I would like to see at at least on higher end drive that's not an Optane for comparison though. Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Agreed Reply
  • philehidiot - Saturday, January 19, 2019 - link

    I think it's always useful, regardless of where you are in the meerkat, to compare to the top and the bottom of the range. This gives you an idea of what you're getting. Am I getting 70% of top end performance for 70% of the price or am I getting 95% of it for 70% of the price? Those are two very different value propositions and certainly things we see often in the PC meerkat. Sometimes the progression with price is linear(ish) and sometimes you can spend double the cash to get the very best but really all you're seeing is a few percent extra performance because it takes that much extra R&D / materials investment to get there. Reply
  • 29a - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    In the second paragraph on the last page.

    "the new WD Black is still a very competitive high-end NVMe SSD"

    They do make the claim that it is a high end SSE which I would equate to being "a top NVMe SSD" and should be compared to the Samsung Pro models.
    Reply
  • althaz - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Depends where you are I guess. The 500Gb WD Black is exactly the same price as the 512Gb Samsung 970 Pro where I live. Samsung's 970 EVO drives are $100/TB cheaper. Reply
  • Samus - Monday, January 21, 2019 - link

    LOL, the 500GB WD Black is consistently close to half the price of the 980 Pro, and the 970 Pro is essentially the same performance as the EVO (hence them being similarly priced.)

    I agree, the 980 Pro should be in the benchmarks, but certainly not the 970 Pro. Just use the EVO as a baseline and add 3% if you want to be picky about exact figures.
    Reply
  • Samus - Monday, January 21, 2019 - link

    I forgot to add, or rather point out, the 970 EVO and 970 PRO share the same controller and are otherwise identical configurations with the exception of the PRO being MLC.

    That said, Samsung actually rates them near-identically in performance and aside from the SLC caching algorithm, the EVO performs the same.

    The only real reason to get the PRO is if you need the DWPD\endurance of MLC. That's literally the only advantage the PRO has.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now