Whole-Drive Fill

This test starts with a freshly-erased drive and fills it with 128kB sequential writes at queue depth 32, recording the write speed for each 1GB segment. This test is not representative of any ordinary client/consumer usage pattern, but it does allow us to observe transitions in the drive's behavior as it fills up. This can allow us to estimate the size of any SLC write cache, and get a sense for how much performance remains on the rare occasions where real-world usage keeps writing data after filling the cache.

The Team Group MP34's use of the latest 12.2 firmware for the Phison E12 controller brings another visible change in the long-term write behavior. After the SLC write cache is filled, we no longer see periodic jumps back up to full SLC write speed; instead, the MP34's post-SLC write speed is very consistent, and a bit higher than on previous firmware. The SLC cache seems to be about 14-15GB on this 512GB drive, which is 1-2GB larger than on the 512GB Gigabyte Aorus RGB.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)
Average Throughput for last 16 GB Overall Average Throughput

The more consistent sustained write performance of the newer firmware also brings a slight overall performance increase, with about a 3% increase in speed for filling the entire drive. The 512GB E12 drives aren't too far behind Samsung on this metric, but the 1TB drives (all with older firmware) are far slower than Samsung's latest.

BAPCo SYSmark 2018

BAPCo's SYSmark 2018 is an application-based benchmark that uses real-world applications to replay usage patterns of business users, with subscores for productivity, creativity and responsiveness. Scores represnt overall system performance and are calibrated against a reference system that is defined to score 1000 in each of the scenarios. A score of, say, 2000, would imply that the system under test is twice as fast as the reference system.

SYSmark scores are based on total application response time as seen by the user, including not only storage latency but time spent by the processor. This means there's a limit to how much a storage improvement could possibly increase scores, because the SSD is only in use for a small fraction of the total test duration. This is a significant difference from our ATSB tests where only the storage portion of the workload is replicated and disk idle times are cut short to a maximum of 25ms.

AnandTech SYSmark SSD Testbed
CPU Intel Core i5-7400
Motherboard ASUS PRIME Z270-A
Chipset Intel Z270
Memory 2x 4GB DDR4-2666 CL15
Case In Win C583
Power Supply Cooler Master G550M
OS Windows 10 64-bit, version 1803

Our SSD testing with SYSmark uses a different test system than the rest of our SSD tests. This machine is set up to measure total system power consumption rather than just the drive's power.

BAPCo SYSmark 2018 Scores
Creativity Productivity Responsiveness Overall

SYSmark 2018 is not a very storage-intensive test, so only the Responsiveness subscore shows a clear difference between SATA and NVMe SSDs. The Team MP34's performance is a few points higher than the Gigabyte Aorus RGB SSD, but this is within the ordinary variation between runs.

Energy Usage

The SYSmark energy usage scores measure total system power consumption, excluding the display. Our SYSmark test system idles at around 26 W and peaks at over 60 W measured at the wall during the benchmark run. SATA SSDs seldom exceed 5 W and idle at a fraction of a watt, and the SSDs spend most of the test idle. This means the energy usage scores will inevitably be very close. A typical notebook system will tend to be better optimized for power efficiency than this desktop system, so the SSD would account for a much larger portion of the total and the score difference between SSDs would be more noticeable.

BAPCo SYSmark 2018 - Energy Consumption

The Team MP34's energy consumption is unsurprisingly lower than the similar drive that has RGB LEDs, but the 1TB Silicon Power P34A80 (another Phison E12 drive) is even a bit more power efficient thanks to its higher performance.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
POST A COMMENT

16 Comments

View All Comments

  • Samus - Wednesday, May 15, 2019 - link

    Why is the WD Black missing from all the benchmarks - even the recently reviewed SN750 is missing?

    I’m at a loss here, you specifically mentioned it on the first page of the article, along with Samsung, yet included all the Samsung drives...
    Reply
  • futrtrubl - Wednesday, May 15, 2019 - link

    Last page. "..if we had the chance to test the 500GB WD Black SN750" Reply
  • kobblestown - Wednesday, May 15, 2019 - link

    FWIW, I just bought a 480GB Corsair MP510 and the firmware is reported as ECFM12.2. I don't know if it's available for update of older devices though. Reply
  • ssd-user - Wednesday, May 15, 2019 - link

    Can you _please_ sort the SSD's by worst-case ("disk full") numbers rather than best-case ones? I generally really like your reviews, but your sorting is simply wrong, and some horribly bad ssd's end up looking much better than they are because of it.

    Particularly for things like the 99% latency numbers it is inane to sort by the best case, since the whole point is about near-worst-case latencies, and bad controller should simply not be given the benefit of the doubt.

    Note that unless you actually trim the ssd, even an empty filesystem will act like a full one, since the ssd doesn't know which parts are used. So as far as the ssd is concerned, it's all full. So the argument that "most people have lots of room on their disk" is quite likely bogus to begin with, but possibly entirely irrelevant even if it were to be true.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, May 16, 2019 - link

    They are storted by worst-case, just in reverse. And if you use an SSD without an automatic trim OS, it's kinda on you, isn't it? Reply
  • ssd-user - Thursday, May 16, 2019 - link

    Death666Angel: please learn to read. They are *not* "sorted by worst-case, just in reverse".

    Look at the "ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)" graph, just as an example.

    In particular, look at the ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB one. Look at how absolutely *HORRIBLE* the latency is for that.

    Yet the idiotic and incorrect sorting shows it as the second-best SSD on that list, because the *best-case* latency when the drive is empty is reasonable. But once it gets full, and $

    Anybody who thinks that that drive should be second-best on that list is incompetent.
    Reply
  • ssd-user - Thursday, May 16, 2019 - link

    Fat-fingered the response. The "and $" should be "and garbage collection happens, latency becomes horrid". Reply
  • Death666Angel - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link

    I still stand by "If you have an OS that uses GC as a valid algorithm, you desever all the crap you brought upon yourself." But have fun being a blast at parties! Learn to read fricking diagrams and stop bitching. Or start being the change you wanna see in the world! Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, May 18, 2019 - link

    the issue is only with the dramless drives when they are above 60-70% full witch you should avoid (the sandisk/WD blue recant controller is cida dramless but it has 10mb of ram on the controller it self witch seems to be enough to mitigate the lack of a full blown dram) Reply
  • ssd-user - Sunday, May 19, 2019 - link

    Exactly. The point is that you should avoid those drives.

    Which is why they shouldn't show up at the top of the charts. They are not top drives, they are the dregs, and they should show up as such.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now