ADATA XPG SX930 (120GB, 240GB & 480GB) SSD Review: JMicron JMF670H Debuts
by Kristian Vättö on July 16, 2015 10:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance. For full details of this test, please refer to this article.
The SX930 doesn't perform too well in our The Destroyer trace. If this was a value-oriented drive, I would say the performance is decent, but any drive that is focusing on the higher-end segment should outperform the BX100 and 850 EVO to have any chance of being competitive.
The number of high latency IOs isn't particularly large, but again the SX930 is only competitive against the value drives.
Power consumption is fairly average for the 480GB model, but the 240GB consumes substantially more due to its lower performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
sonny73n - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
LOL @EVO 3-bit NAND...I just threw out my 1 year old 840EVO 250GB which was the worst SSD I've ever had. MX200 500GB is in and I wish I could've got this one from the begining instead of the EVO junk.
Stochastic - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
Just curious, what problems did you encounter?fokka - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
i guess the same as so many others, which still has no real fix: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8550/samsung-acknowl...Impulses - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
That's not about the 850.Adding-Color - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
What not about the 850? OP was talking about the 840!futrtrubl - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
Actually the OP was talking about something to challenge the EVO, the latest of which is the 850.Samus - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link
What proof does anybody have the 850EVO is going to be any difference than the 840EVO with performance degradation. They use the same technology and only the 850PRO get's the binned, lower node 3D VNAND.voicequal - Monday, July 20, 2015 - link
The 840EVO was on ~19nm NAND. The 850EVO uses 40nm V-NAND which should provide much greater cell integrity needed for TLC operation.sonny73n - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
What about the 850? After my experience with that "EVO", Samsung 3-bit TLC NAND in particular, I had lost interest and trust in Samsung. The 830 Pro 128GB I had years ago was excellent though but it took a chunk out of my pocket. So I guess when it comes to value for the money, I should always look somewhere else.bug77 - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
Then you don't know that the 850 EVO has *nothing* to do with 840 EVO. Not surprising, otherwise you wouldn't have bought that PoS. The planar TLC is bottom of the barrel, with slow access and probably under 1000 P/E cycles. The 850 EVO uses 3D NAND which alleviates those issues.So you see, it really wasn't an 840 EVO problem, it was a planar TLC NAND problem. Many cheap drives still use that.