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 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. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The number of high latency IOs isn't particularly large, but again the SX930 is only competitive against the value drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Power consumption is fairly average for the 480GB model, but the 240GB consumes substantially more due to its lower performance.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Kristian.. that's so shocking to hear! It's the same attitude which gave us the poorly performing JMicron controllers in the first years of SSDs. Was it 2009? It took Anand to explain them why their drives optimized for sequential performance s*cked in the real world. Did they learn nothing during all those years?
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    True yet both has a point. Even if they optimized for low queue depths, real world client workloads wouldn't change much such as booting Windows or loading some games or programs though benchmarks would show the improvements. I would like to see better random performance in all SSDs in the future but it's rare to have that kind of workload in clients and usually it is done so quickly.

    They listened though because Anandtech is already respected when it comes to these.
  • bug77 - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    But can you really blame them? Even Anandtech runs the standard benchmark battery and throws you some number. They don't test real-world scenarios, so why would manufacturers optimize for that?
  • leexgx - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    maybe you should be looking at the AnandTech Storage Bench part of the reviews
  • ZeDestructor - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    No Intel 730/S3500 in the comparisons? :(
  • frenchy_2001 - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    Completely different market segment (medium SATA SSD vs premium PCIe/NVMe).
    You can still compare them with BENCH if you want to see what you get for your $$
    (hint: lots if you need it, little in client usage)
  • DigitalFreak - Friday, July 17, 2015 - link

    So JMicron is still crap after all these years. At least they're consistent.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 18, 2015 - link

    Not everyone can have a drive that slows down to 30 MB/s on reads like Samsung.
  • The_Assimilator - Sunday, July 19, 2015 - link

    Samsung has made 1 slip-up that was fixed with a firmware update, JMicron makes controllers that are consistently awful. Which one deserves more of your vitriol?
  • DigitalFreak - Sunday, July 19, 2015 - link

    He's mesmerized by the flames on the box.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now