AnandTech 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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The 2TB Pro appears to be marginally slower than the 1TB model, but honestly we are talking about a ~5% difference. As I mentioned on the previous page, managing more NAND requires more controller resources and since the MHX is fundamentally an MEX with a beefier DRAM controller, a tiny performance hit is normal and despite that the 2TB Pro and EVO are still the fastest SATA drives on the market.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

There's an increase in >10ms IOs, which I suspect is again due to the higher performance variation caused by the additional management resources required by the extra NAND.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The 2TB Pro turns out to have better power efficiency than its 512GB sibling. Normally smaller drives are more efficient due to having less NAND drawing power, but it may very well be that Samsung has moved to a more power efficient process node for the MHX controller, which would explain the lower power consumption.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • leexgx - Saturday, July 25, 2015 - link

    the max speed of SATA interface (any thing higher sequential 500mb/s sequential i would not even bother to look at sequential speed tests)
    with SSDs its the random speeds you should be looking at, as its not the sequential speed that makes a SSD fast (that is depending what your doing that is as a SSD sequential is still 3x faster then a HDD) as random access can be 20-80mb/s on SSD (random access tends to be as low as 0.5mb/s on a HDD or lower)
  • Kristian Vättö - Sunday, July 26, 2015 - link

    600MB/s is the theoretical maximum after 8b/10b encoding. However, there are other overheads (e.g. AHCI) that lead the maximum performance in real world being about 560MB/s.
  • DIYEyal - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link

    Great review as always!
    By the way, I found a typo in page 4: "or full details of the test, please refer to the this article."
  • mark53916 - Friday, July 24, 2015 - link

    Very good review, especially the wide gamut of the tests and the
    ability to see graphs for competing devices.

    However, you still have left out:
    file copy: single stream and multiple stream.

    The tests on:
    The 2TB Samsung 850 Pro & EVO SSD Review
    Mixed Random Read/Write Performance
    The 2TB Samsung 850 Pro & EVO SSD Review
    are good, but the reviews should include COPY tests. (Write Sequentially
    and Read Sequentially are not the same as COPY sequentially, and many devices
    have much less than 1/2 of the performance that would be expected if the devices
    were "perfect". For example if read sequential and write sequential were 550MB/s,
    one would expect at least 275MB/s for COPY, but might see only 100MB/s.
    [Since you will see that there some devices are able to copy at speeds above 250MB/s,
    you would know that drop in the copy speed to less than 1/2 of the write speed
    and read speed is a limit of the device under test, and not due to your
    configuration.] )

    Thank you, especially for the power graphs and over-provisioned performance data:
    The 2TB Samsung 850 Pro & EVO SSD Review
    Performance Consistency

    Samsung 850 Pro 2TB 25% OP - 4KB Random Write (QD32) Performance
    used less than 37000 writes/second *4K bytes/write* 3400 seconds
    Rounding up, I calculate that the total data written,
    excluding the write amplification factor is less than
    4E4 writes/second*4E3 seconds* 4KB/write = 1.6E8 *4KB
    so less than 160 M *4KB

    The over-provisioning was at least 512GB=
    512M *4KB
    So, unless the write amplification factor was larger than about
    3 the steady state hasn't been reached. I expect that the write
    amplification factor was less than 2; given the amount
    of over provision it likely less than 1.25. Therefore I
    think at least 3 hour runtime is needed, maybe 4 hours. 6
    hours seems like longer than needed.

    Note that the Samsung 850 Pro 2TB likely to be able to erase
    blocks for use at a much higher speed than the external write
    speed that is being measured, but the still could be a change
    in performance at some point.

    Nitpick: The packaging and labels on all my 850 PRO stuff (up to 1TB) say
    "PRO" not "Pro".
  • Kristian Vättö - Sunday, July 26, 2015 - link

    For enterprise drives, we run a longer six-hour 4KB random write test to measure steady-state to ensure that it's really steady state. For client drives an hour of 4KB random writes at QD32 is already unrealistic and it gives us data that is a fairly accurate representation of steady-state performance while keeping the test duration shorter to increase our test throughput.
  • Navier - Sunday, July 26, 2015 - link

    Where are the Intel SSDs for comparison? Historically Intel drives have the most consistent drive performance across the entire drive cycle and use cases. However the Intel 730, and 500 series SATA drives are omitted from the comparisons. Why?
  • Kristian Vättö - Sunday, July 26, 2015 - link

    I've only had limited time to put drives through our new 2015 Client SSD Suite and given that Intel drives haven't been the most competitive in the SATA client space for a while, they haven't been my top priority.
  • akula2 - Monday, July 27, 2015 - link

    >The Pro has been holding the performance crown for the past year and it's starting to look like no SATA drive can dethrone it

    Probably. However, I'd continue to overlook the recommendations of Samsung products when there exist alternative products (such as from SanDisk) with comparable performance plus for the lesser $ price. I've no interest in paying more to companies like Samsung, thus making them more rich and larger.

    Note: I own many many SSDs of various types and makes. In my R&D and Manufacturing business domain, IT product performance matters but there is a price thresold at which one shouldn't cross (RoI) while procurding those products in bulk. It just doesn't make any sense to ignore $ saving per product each year. Note that Samsung 850 crashed their prices only a little while ago.
  • Impulses - Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - link

    The EVO has had a mild to substantial price advantage on everything else for a few months now tho... Kinda makes the Pro's premium moot unless you're in some sorta edge case where the difference between them matters and there's some equivalent alternative that happens to be priced just between the two.
  • TelstarTOS - Monday, July 27, 2015 - link

    The 2TB EVO is a very interesting drive, perfect for a notebook.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now