AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

While The Destroyer focuses on sustained and worst-case performance by hammering the drive with nearly 1TB worth of writes, the Heavy trace provides a more typical enthusiast and power user workload. By writing less to the drive, the Heavy trace doesn't drive the SSD into steady-state and thus the trace gives us a good idea of peak performance combined with some basic garbage collection routines.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Workload Description Applications Used
Photo Editing Import images, edit, export Adobe Photoshop
Gaming Pllay games, load levels Starcraft II, World of Warcraft
Content Creation HTML editing Dreamweaver
General Productivity Browse the web, manage local email, document creation, application install, virus/malware scan Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware
Application Development Compile Chromium Visual Studio 2008

The Heavy trace drops virtualization from the equation and goes a bit lighter on photo editing and gaming, making it more relevant to the majority of end-users.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - Specs
Reads 2.17 million
Writes 1.78 million
Total IO Operations 3.99 million
Total GB Read 48.63 GB
Total GB Written 106.32 GB
Average Queue Depth ~4.6
Focus Peak IO, basic GC routines

The Heavy trace is actually more write-centric than The Destroyer is. A part of that is explained by the lack of virtualization because operating systems tend to be read-intensive, be that a local or virtual system. The total number of IOs is less than 10% of The Destroyer's IOs, so the Heavy trace is much easier for the drive and doesn't even overwrite the drive once.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - IO Breakdown
IO Size <4KB 4KB 8KB 16KB 32KB 64KB 128KB
% of Total 7.8% 29.2% 3.5% 10.3% 10.8% 4.1% 21.7%

The Heavy trace has more focus on 16KB and 32KB IO sizes, but more than half of the IOs are still either 4KB or 128KB. About 43% of the IOs are sequential with the rest being slightly more full random than pseudo-random.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy - QD Breakdown
Queue Depth 1 2 3 4-5 6-10 11-20 21-32 >32
% of Total 63.5% 10.4% 5.1% 5.0% 6.4% 6.0% 3.2% 0.3%

In terms of queue depths the Heavy trace is even more focused on very low queue depths with three fourths happening at queue depth of one or two. 

I'm reporting the same performance metrics as in The Destroyer benchmark, but I'm running the drive in both empty and full states. Some manufacturers tend to focus intensively on peak performance on an empty drive, but in reality the drive will always contain some data. Testing the drive in full state gives us valuable information whether the drive loses performance once it's filled with data.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

In the Heavy trace the 850 EVO scores highly. As I've said before, it seems that only Samsung has found the secret recipe to boost performance under SATA 6Gbps because no other manufacturer comes close to it in this benchmark. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Moving on to latency and the 850 EVO still keeps its lead compared to other manufacturers' drives. The difference is nowhere near as significant as in the throughput metric above, but the 850 EVO is still without a doubt one of the highest performing drives on the market. The smaller capacities are a bit of a disappointement, though, because the 250GB mSATA loses to MX100 by a quite hefty margin, but it still beats the Ultra II for what it's worth.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The smaller capacities, especially the 120GB one, seem to have quite a few high latency IOs. I wouldn't say the situation for the 250GB model is critical, but I do think that individuals with heavier workloads should focus on the 500GB and higher capacities in order to avoid any storage performance issues. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

But in terms of power the 850 EVO is very efficient at smaller capacities. Given that mSATA and M.2 standards are mostly used in mobile applications, this is very good news.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
POST A COMMENT

58 Comments

View All Comments

  • Peichen - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Shouldn't mSATA/M.2 intereface drives be a lot faster than SATAIII drives due to the much faster interface? I was kinda expecting 1GB/sec. speed consider there are already drive tested at 1.4 and 2.7GB/sec. Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    mSATA is SATA in a different formfactor. M.2 can be either SATA or PCI-E. As stated in the article, this drive comes (only) in the SATA form. Reply
  • foxtrot1_1 - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    The interface is still SATA, even if the connector is M.2. I assume PCIe M.2 drives will be coming later. Reply
  • Murloc - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    in a very short time they introduced a bunch of connectors and interfaces and it's all gotten quite confusing. Reply
  • foxtrot1_1 - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    Don't worry, it's not like there's also three different mainstream USB standards with two different plugs. Oh wait.

    Well, at least we have one agreed-upon display connection, that makes shopping for monitors and graphics cards easier. Oh wait.
    Reply
  • lazarpandar - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    That's the great thing about standards, you've got so many to choose from! Reply
  • yslee - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    xkcd #927 puts it very nicely. :P Reply
  • Artuk - Wednesday, April 1, 2015 - link

    Nice Reply
  • blanarahul - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    You need yo put /sarcasm tag so people don't get confused. Reply
  • Callitrax - Tuesday, March 31, 2015 - link

    One thing you should probably do in M.2 SSD reviews is include how the drives are keyed, preferably in one of the tables. This is important since the M.2 interface is actually 4 semi compatible "standards" (see http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/understandi... As a result not all M.2 SSDs will fit in all M.2 slots. This one appears to be both B and M keyed so I think it should be pretty universal, but as an example the Samsung XP941 is only M keyed and thus will not work in the HP Stream Mini's B keyed SSD slot. (Did whoever came up with M.2 make a crappy standard that will cause lots of customer support calls and RMA's when consumers M.2 drives don't work with their M.2 equipped computers? Yes they did.) Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now