AnandTech 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, 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. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The average data rate from the 1TB HP EX920 on The Destroyer is a bit disappointing, falling below the lower-capacity Intel 760p and only a little over half as fast as current 1TB high-end NVMe SSDs. The EX920 is still substantially faster than SATA SSDs or low-end NVMe SSDs like the Phison E8-based Kingston A1000, but the EX920 is definitely not in the same league as Samsung's drives or the current WD Black.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the HP EX920 cast the drive in a slightly better light than the average data rate did, but it is still falling short of the high-end NVMe drives. The EX920 scores better than the smaller Intel 760p on these two metrics, even though the Intel drive delivered a higher average data rate.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The HP EX920's average read latency is about twice as high as the high-end NVMe SSDs. The average write latency of the EX920 is also worse than the Samsung drives and WD Black by about the same factor, but the boundary for the top tier of drives is not as sharp since the Plextor M9Pe and the aging Toshiba OCZ RD400 are also lagging behind some.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the HP EX920 is decent, though it could also be said that this is simply a matter of Samsung's drives being uncharacteristically unimpressive while the WD Black sets a high standard. The 99th percentile write latency of the EX920 is clearly a problem, with more than 40% higher latency than any drive in this bunch that isn't using a Silicon Motion controller. The EX920 and Intel 760p fare much better than the previous generation Intel 600p thanks to improvements to both the flash and the controller, but it is clear that Silicon Motion still needs to work of their QoS.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The energy usage of the HP EX920 when running The Destroyer is a bit on the high side by M.2 NVMe SSD standards, but it doesn't stand out from other power-hungry drives including the Samsung 970 EVO. Unlike the 970 EVO, the EX920 doesn't justify its high power consumption with high performance, though even the 970 EVO's power consumption is hard to excuse when the WD Black offers the same performance for a little over half of the energy usage. NVMe power efficiency is still a work in progress for the industry as a whole.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

32 Comments

View All Comments

  • olderkid - Monday, July 9, 2018 - link

    When is the last time you bought a hot cake? Reply
  • SanX - Monday, July 9, 2018 - link

    Who here remembers two decades ago history when DRAM prices dropped 5-6 times in a matter of few months and no one got bankrupt?

    Yes, the electronic industry is screwing people for decades. In the brain of salespeople the 10nm Apple A11 4.3 billion transistor chip can cost $25 but similar transistor count some Intel Xeon processor made even by ancient 20-30nm tech by their crazy logic can not cost less then $1000-2000
    Reply
  • Adramtech - Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - link

    SanX, All these companies from 20 years ago are not in the game because there are not enough profits to go around....and there were many more from this time period that went out of business.
    Samsung
    NEC
    Hitachi
    Hyundai
    Toshiba
    LG Semicon
    TI
    Micron
    Mitsubishi
    Fujitsu
    Reply
  • Adramtech - Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - link

    Extra Credit: what companies from this 1990's list make DRAM today? Reply
  • Totally - Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - link

    I'll play

    Samsung
    TI <- technically still does since it is partnered with Micron
    Micron
    Reply
  • Dr. Swag - Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - link

    Surprise surprise, cost/transistor went down from 20-30nm to 10nm, and also the xeon has a much bigger die size and so had lower yields. Reply
  • Totally - Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - link

    You're speaking words that one doesn't understand. Reply
  • SanX - Tuesday, July 10, 2018 - link

    Rotfl rotflnao Swag and Totally. You made my day...how poor anandtech readers degraded so miserably.... Oh, yea, sure, Intel is that dumb company which makes potato chips. It also as a complimentary business makes retarded design processors on older tech because wants more defects on the yield, low margin, and has no brain, no money and no advanced factories. Sure, it can not lower the production cost to $10-20 bucks like all others obviously do.

    Lololololol. Congrats, you two made the most stupid comment of the year.
    Reply
  • Hectandan - Thursday, July 12, 2018 - link

    Xeons are likely to cost less than $1K.
    But production cost is nothing in this industry. R&D, demand, etc almost always drive the prices. Otherwise why are iPhones selling for $1K with a $25 chip?
    Reply
  • FullmetalTitan - Thursday, July 12, 2018 - link

    Cause Samsung charged them $124 a piece for the OLED display and driver IC assembly for one. That is compared to ~$30 for the LCD displays used in the iPhone 9. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now