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
Oxford Guy - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
We'll just pretend that the 840 EVO had not been heavily hyped by commentators like you all over the net for quite a long time as well as by review sites. We will also just pretend that it did not have very heavy sales figures. Instead because Samsung put out with a new drive that you want to push we will just pretend that anyone who bought the previous generation drives were idiots.Oxford Guy - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
Plus, it was Samsung who decided to stick with the EVO name.sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link
@Oxford Guy,I couldn't agree more with you. Thank you for explaining things clearer than I ever could have.
sonny73n - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
@Stochastic840 EVO sequential read at ~100MB/s. My 5900RPM Seagate 2TB HDD is at ~135MB/s. Lol
leexgx - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link
what about random data speeds (as that's more the problem with HDDS)sonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link
What about a product that doesn't meet advertised specs? "Fool me once, shame on you..." I'll make sure the second line of that saying won't apply to me.leexgx - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link
if you're using a 840 EVO you can update the firmware to restore the drive to more so normal performance (unless your on linux or OSX then best not) even so without the firmware update compared to a HDD the 840 evo SSD is overall fastersonny73n - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link
By the way, I'm still rocking my i5-2500K system OCed @4.5GHz. I always had an SSD for boot drive (C:) and 2 HDD drives for storage since the beginning. Why should there be problems with the HDDs as they're just storage drives? Damn why did I feel the urge to explain to a 5th grader?bill.rookard - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
I was never crazy about the TLC premise either. I prefer the 830's for boot drives since they're very reliable and have a more proven track record. I think the 850's with the 3D NAND should be pretty durable as well. In my servers I have the Crucial MX100's (a pair of 256Gs - one for data, one for sync, but -not- raided) and they're solid drives and have not had a single spot of trouble with those.fokka - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link
after the 840 evo fiasko i'm reluctant to put my trust in samsung, especially when there are perfectly capable, performant and affordable SSDs like the bx100 available. 3d nand is nice and all, but for me crucial just seems like the safer bet right now.