AnandTech Storage Bench 2011

Back in 2011 (which seems like so long ago now!), we introduced our AnandTech Storage Bench, a suite of benchmarks that took traces of real OS/application usage and played them back in a repeatable manner. The MOASB, officially called AnandTech Storage Bench 2011 – Heavy Workload, mainly focuses on peak IO performance and basic garbage collection routines. There is a lot of downloading and application installing that happens during the course of this test. Our thinking was that it's during application installs, file copies, downloading and multitasking with all of this that you can really notice performance differences between drives. The full description of the Heavy test can be found here, while the Light workload details are here.

Heavy Workload 2011 - Average Data Rate

The 2011 Heavy Storage Bench is a bit of a letdown. SanDisk has never really excelled in peak performance like Samsung has and even with nCache 2.0 the Ultra II is not as fast as e.g. the MX100 and 840 EVO. In the Light suite, which is more relevant for typical client users, the differences are far more marginal and practically negligible in the real world.

Light Workload 2011 - Average Data Rate

AnandTech Storage Bench 2013 Random & Sequential Performance
POST A COMMENT

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • maecenas - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link

    Interesting stuff, good to see that competition is picking up in this market. I think it will be a significant threshold moment when we see the 240gb SSDs drop below $100. Reply
  • NeatOman - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link

    I just saw an OCZ Vertex 460 240GB drive go for $104 the other day on newegg, and of course there sold out. Thats Nucking Futs, since i bought a 120GB 840 pro last year for $140 and the speed looks to be about the same, possibly faster in some ways on the OCZ Reply
  • D. Lister - Sunday, October 12, 2014 - link

    But then, it is OCZ, and many people who know their tech history, wouldn't take an OCZ SSD for free (regardless of whether they are right or wrong in doing so). Reply
  • simonrichter - Friday, October 3, 2014 - link

    I agree, really interesting to see and I'm looking forward to see what the future holds for SSDs. /Simon from http://www.consumertop.com/best-computer-storage-g... Reply
  • CamdogXIII - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link

    I bought my first SSD back in 08. 16GB for 80$ Second SSD was 32GB for 100$. Third SSD was 64GB for 100$. Just bought a 256GB 840 Pro for 160$. We have come a long way. Reply
  • PICman - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link

    Having an SLC cache is clever. I also like the low power consumption, reasonable performance, and especially the low price. I've had bad luck with the reliability of Samsung products, so it's great that they are getting some competition. Reply
  • Wixman666 - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    I've had nothing but stellar performance from Samsung SSDs. I have dozens of them out in the field, and not one single failure. Sandisk is OK as well... OCZ might end up OK since Toshiba owns them now. Reply
  • Essence_of_War - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link

    I feel like with every new ssd review I read, I grow to appreciate the fantastic value that the MX100 represents even more. Reply
  • frontlinegeek - Saturday, September 20, 2014 - link

    Totally agree. We just outfitted our development PCs at work with MX100 256 GB drives and they are utterly fantastic for price/performance. I cannot at all get over how big an impact an SSD at work makes. FAR more than at home I can say. At least for average home use.

    We run multiple Visual Studio sessions and Oracle SQL Developer along with browsers and other misc apps so the impact has been just terrific.
    Reply
  • fanofanand - Thursday, May 12, 2016 - link

    I know this article is old, but I was researching SSD's and as I trust Anandtech over any other tech site, I came here for the truth. The sad reality is, the MX100 has been overly praised, and is now priced (on Amazon) $72 more than the Sandisk Ultra II at same/similar (512 vs 480) capacity. The MX100 isn't Ultra 2 good...... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now