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 Toshiba/Kioxia BG4's overall performance on The Destroyer is pretty good for an entry-level NVMe SSD; it clearly outperforms the Intel 660p and the Phison E8-based Kingston A1000, and is several times faster than the BG3-based RC100. The Host Memory Buffer feature doesn't have much impact on the BG4's performance, reflecting the fact that this test touches a lot of data without much locality.

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

The BG4 doesn't have the latency troubles that other low-end SSDs present. Both the average and 99th percentile latency scores for the BG4 are better than the Crucial MX500 mainstream SATA drive, and the average latency also beats the Kingston A1000.

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

The average write latency for the BG4 during The Destroyer is clearly much higher than for the typical high-end NVMe drive, but is decent compared to other entry-level NVMe drives. For average read latency, the gap between the BG4 and high-end drives is quite a bit smaller.

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

The BG4 turns in good scores for both 99th percentile read and write latencies. The write score in particular is a huge improvement over the BG3/RC100's terrible worst-case performance.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The Toshiba BG3/RC100 had pretty low power consumption, but took forever to complete The Destroyer and its total energy usage ended up being quite high. The BG4 doesn't have the performance problems, and as a result it comes away with a record-low energy usage score. Even fast and notably efficient drives like the XG6 and WD Black don't come close.

Cache Size Effects AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • intelati - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link

    That last image is absolutely ridiculous. You get good performing 1TB of SSD storage on a postage stand.

    Jesus H Christ.
    Reply
  • MaxUserName - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link

    No, BG4 have too poor performance:
    https://www.storagereview.com/toshiba_bg4_nvme_ssd...
    Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link

    I took a quick look at your link but quit looking when I saw they were testing SQL Server as one of their tests and with 15,000 virtual users. Completely useless use case. Even if you are are a software developer running a local copy of SQL Server, you won't be testing 15K users. So its performance somewhat pales in comparison to many full size m.2 SSD's. There are trade-offs to every component and in a laptop, particularly a thin and light laptop, those trade-offs usually have to favor saving space and power efficiency. It accomplishes those two goals on its own plus the smaller size may enable a larger battery in some systems. so what if your 2 TB 970 Evo outperforms it. The people buying the systems where this would be used won't care. It seems pretty ideally suited to its target audience. Reply
  • Tams80 - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link

    I second that being a silly review.
    This is, as the article here states multiple times, for space-constrained devices. The BG4 more than meets the needs of these. As a bonus to us as customers, it means manufacturers are less likely to solder down the SSDs, so we can actually replace/upgrade them.
    Reply
  • 0ldman79 - Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - link

    We're looking at a review right now.

    It's not as fast as NVME but it's faster than SATA on most benchmarks.

    It's a quarter size of most NVME drives.
    Reply
  • svan1971 - Saturday, October 19, 2019 - link

    Lord, learn how to spell stamp, amen. Reply
  • wenart - Sunday, October 20, 2019 - link

    Does Jesus have a second name? Reply
  • Jambe - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link

    Hieronymus, obviously. Reply
  • ToTTenTranz - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link

    The Smach-Z uses a 2230 M.2 NVMe slot.

    Just saying.
    Reply
  • Kishoreshack - Friday, October 18, 2019 - link

    Excellent review
    deep dive into the ssd we will get in our laptops
    I just hope these form factors become common
    &
    are adopted for every laptop
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now