The Samsung 750 EVO (120GB & 250GB) SSD Review: A Return To Planar NAND
by Billy Tallis on April 22, 2016 8:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. 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.
The Destroyer has earned its name here. The 750 EVO is clearly the slowest modern SSD on this test, showing that it is not suitable for sustained intense workloads with a high volume of writes. Almost any other SSD currently on the market will perform better under pressure, including competing TLC drives.
The 750 EVO also sets new records for slow responses, with average service times on par with standard hard drive seek times. Though since The Destroyer has an average queue depth of about 5.5, a mechanical hard drive would still be several times worse by this metric. Conversely, the best MLC SSDs are almost ten times quicker than the 750 EVO.
With over 10% of operations taking more than 10ms, we can't quite refer to them as outliers anymore. At the 100ms threshold, the 750 EVO has twice as many outliers as anything else.
The substantially higher energy usage of the 750 EVOs is a straightforward consequence of them taking much longer than everything else to complete the test: The 120GB 750 EVO took just over 17 hours to complete this test while the 120GB PNY CS1311 took only 13.5 hours and the 128GB 850 Pro needed only 10 hours.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
jabber - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
Yeah must admit I don't have the need or want to hoard masses of ripped off content. That is a psychosis I can do without. It just junk.Deelron - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
My wife has 200 GB of Life Event Photos/Videos going back 20+ years (and I'd imagine people with much better cameras then we had could have significantly more, particularly if they have a larger family) and there's not a bit of media on the machine. After OS and regular applications the minimum suitable single drive would be 480 GB, without a lick of pirated media.jabber - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Would that 200GB+ be better backed up safely somewhere than sitting on the main drive? Keeping masses of mainly dead/unused data on a day to day machine seems odd nowadays. There are systems better suited for that kind of data.Deelron - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
It's backed up locally (two he's that switch every month) and via cloud. It's not just "sitting" there any more then a physical photo album would be.Margalus - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
It has nothing to do with piracy.. My Steam folder alone is over 1GB.erple2 - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
I think that I have save games that are larger than 1GB.Eden-K121D - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
You mean 1TBMargalus - Sunday, April 24, 2016 - link
lol, yes. that is what I meant...
Lolimaster - Friday, April 22, 2016 - link
It's simply because you didn't embrace internet. That kind of low storage needs is more of the pre-2000's.Between movies, tv series, some cartoons, anime, manga it's easy to need more than 1 6TB drive. I have 4x 6TB's right now.
jabber - Saturday, April 23, 2016 - link
Yes but you appear to be 16 years aold. Some of us are over 30. If you are over 30 I see that as a cry for help.