AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of heavy desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this review. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The BX100's performance on The Destroyer isn't dead last, but it underperforms for its capacity.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Average service time is startlingly high and is close to a hard drive's seek time.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The frequency of performance outliers is in line with the other two low performers on this test, indicating that the BX200's performance doesn't stutter any more often, but it pauses for longer periods of time when it does stutter.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Higher power consumption is to be expected from a drive using TLC NAND, but the BX200 consumed more than twice the energy over the duration of The Destroyer than any of the other drives, and more than five times as much as the BX100. The BX200 didn't take vastly more time to complete The Destroyer, so it was clearly not making good use of idle time.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

86 Comments

View All Comments

  • npz - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Yes but that is mostly up to retailers since MSRP is already lower than other brand's msrp. I just got the OZC Trion 960GB for $279 recently for example. I hope for their own sake they do cut the price down. At the same time it'll be hard for them short term without Micron TLC being produced en masse. Reply
  • ilkhan - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    If a company is going to shoot for the value proposition, they really need to beat samsung by more than 10%. Paying an extra 10% to get a really solid drive like the 850EVO is just too tempting for anyone who does even the tiniest of research before buying.
    You either need to be the cheapest, best name brand recognition, or fastest. Crucial isn't any of those on the 250GB market.
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, November 6, 2015 - link

    Crucial has better quality and is a U.S. company. You shouldn't give Samung so much credit. Reply
  • squngy - Thursday, November 26, 2015 - link

    What does the county of the home office got to do with anything? Reply
  • Samus - Friday, February 19, 2016 - link

    Support. Samsungs is a joke. Fortunately the 840 Evo is the only drive they've botched. Crucial has excellent support and an excellent track record to go with their products. Shows good QA. Wouldn't expect anything else from an Intel subsidiary. Reply
  • zeeBomb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    What's the difference between TLC NAND to MLC or SLC NAND again? Reply
  • Beararam - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/flash-data-cente... Reply
  • dakishimesan - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6337/samsung-ssd-840... Reply
  • coconutboy - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    slc = premium, reliable, fast, expensive, etc
    mlc = middle ground
    tlc = cheap, lowest reliability, but Samsung has gotten tlc quality up to a level sufficient for most non-enterprise users

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell
    Reply
  • zeeBomb - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Okay awesome, thanks. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now