AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionately more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance should never drop all the way down to the steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The higher proportion of writes on the Heavy test as compared with The Destroyer sends the BX200 to the bottom of the chart. The difference in performance between running the Heavy test on a freshly-erased drive and a completely full drive is atypically small, showing that the poor performance cannot be due to a mere lack of sufficient overprovisioning.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Until the BX200 came along, there wasn't much spread among SATA drive for average service time. The painful write performance shows up very clearly here.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

With 8.8% and 10.7% of operations taking more than 10ms to complete, the BX200 will clearly be noticeably slower than most modern SSDs under moderate and heavy load.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

Power consumption is once again dismal, as the drive is apparently spending way too much of its time on its relatively ineffective garbage collection.

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

85 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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
  • FalcomPSX - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    SLC NAND stores one bit per flash cell. MLC stores two bits per cell. and TLC stores three bits per cell. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now