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 Crucial P1 on The Destroyer is comparable to other entry-level NVMe drives like the Phison E8-based Kingston A1000 and the Intel 660p. The P1 also roughly matches the average data rate of the Crucial MX500 SATA SSD, while several high-end NVMe drives deliver more than twice the performance.

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

While the average data rate from the Crucial P1 may have been similar to the MX500, the average latency is about twice that of the MX500, and slightly higher than the Intel 660p. The situation is better for the 99th percentile latency, where the Crucial P1 comes close to the MX500 and shows half the 99th percentile latency of the Intel 660p.

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

The average read and write latencies for the Crucial P1 on The Destroyer are both slightly worse than what the Intel 660p provides, and the Crucial MX500 provides a much better average write latency.

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

The 99th percentile read latency from the Crucial P1 is very good, competitive with several high-end NVMe SSDs. However, the 99th percentile write latency is quite poor compared to almost any other NVMe SSD or mainstream SATA SSD. This is a huge difference in behavior compared to the Intel 660p. The Crucial P1 is optimized much more for reliable read latency, at significant cost to worst-case write latency under heavy workloads.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The Crucial P1 requires significantly more energy to complete The Destroyer than the Intel 660p, despite the near-identical hardware and very similar overall performance numbers. The Crucial P1's relatively poor efficiency on this test isn't a serious issue given that the drive is intended for less demanding use cases, but combined with the high 99th percentile write latency this points to the P1 possibly experiencing higher write amplification on The Destroyer than the Intel 660p experiences.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

68 Comments

View All Comments

  • Lolimaster - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link

    With worse of everything how is it going to be "faster", do any TLC SSD beat the Samsung MLC ones? No. Reply
  • npz - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link

    The ONLY reason why TLC is fast today is because of 3D VNAND combined with caching. People are comparing 3D TLC with planar MLC. If you want and apples-to-apples comparison, you'll see that 3D MLC is still more performant and more durable than 3D TLC.

    All of the performance of QLC will come from the pseudo SLC cache, yet that doesn't help with durability nor in situations where you overflow it, or where it's not desirable (which is why Micron doesn't use one on their server focused QLC -- see how pitiful it is then).

    What salvaged TLC was the transition to larger process 3D NAND. Small process planar TLC was not good. Now what will salvage QLC?
    Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link

    "Now what will salvage QLC?"

    unfortunately, too many humans believe that people 'invent' things. people don't. all they do, at best, is figure out how Mother Nature actually works. you can't fool Mother Nature. and you sure can't make up physics that happens to fit your deepest desires, and yet defies good ole Mother Nature.
    Reply
  • Valantar - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link

    What's the point of increasing performance when current top-level performance is already so high as to be nigh unnoticeable? The real-world difference between a good mid-range NVMe drive and a high end one are barely measurable in actual real-world workloads, let alone noticeable. Sure, improving random perf would be worthwhile, but that's not happening with flash any time soon. Increasing capacity per dollar while maintaining satisfactory performance is clearly a worthy goal. The only issue is that this, as with most drives at launch, is overpriced. It'll come down, though. Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link

    ^ This.

    For typical end users, even NVMe over SATA3 SSDs don't provide a noticeable difference in overall system performance. Moving to an SSD over an HDD for your OS install was a different story and a noticeable upgrade, but that kind of noticeable upgrade just isn't going to happen anymore.

    Typical end users aren't writing/reading so much off the drive that QLC presents a noticeable downgrade over TLC, or even MLC storage. Yes, right now QLC isn't cheap enough compared to existing TLC products, but we've already done this dance when TLC first arrived on the scene and people were stalwart about sticking to MLC drives only. Today? We got high-end NVMe TLC drives with better read/write and random IOPS performance compared to the best MLC SATA3 drives back when MLC was the superior technology.

    Yeah, it's going to take time for QLC to come down in price, the tech is newer and yields are lower, and companies are trying to fine tune the characteristics of their product stacks to make them both appealing in price and performance. Give it some time.
    Reply
  • romrunning - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link

    Sure, we lost endurance and speed with the switch from MLC to TLC. But the change from TLC to QLC is much worse in terms of latency, endurance, and just overall performance. Frankly, the sad part is that the drive needs the pseudo-SLC area to just barely meet the lowered expectations for QLC. Some of those QLC drives barely beat good SATA drives.

    We now have a new tech (3D Xpoint/Optane) that is demonstrably better for latency, consistency, endurance, and performance. I'd rather Micron continue to put the $ into it to get higher yields for both increased density/capacity & lower costs. That's what I want on the NVMe side, not another race to the bottom.
    Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 8, 2018 - link

    Sorry, you're not the end consumer that dictates how products get taped out, and honestly, if you were in charge of product management, you'd run the company into the ground focusing on making only premium priced storage drives in a market that's saturated with performance drives.

    The bulk of all SSD sales are for lower cost lower storage options. There is no "race to the bottom", it's just some jank you made up in your head to justify why companies are focusing on making products for the common man. Being able to move from an affordable 500GB SSD on TLC to an similarly priced 1TB SSD in a few years is a GOOD THING.

    If you want preemium(tm) quality products, SSDs with only the HIGHEST of endurance ratings for the massive Read/Write workloads you perform on your personal desktop on a day-to-day basis, SSDs with only the LOWEST of latencies so that you can load into Forknight(tm) faster than the other childerm, then how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article. The products you want with the technology you need are out there. They're expensive because it's a niche market catered towards enterprise workloads where they can justify the buckets of money.

    You keep whining, I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution. Right now, getting even a cheap 1TB SSD for caching is super-slick.
    Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link

    "...how about you go buy enterprise storage products instead of whining in the comments section of a free news article."

    You are taking this way too personally.

    I'm actually thinking more about the business side. I want 3D-Xpoint/Optane to get cheaper & get more capacity so that I can justify it for more than just some specific servers/use-cases. So I'd like Micron to focus more on developing that side than chasing the price train with QLC, which is inferior to what preceded it. With Micron buying out Intel's stake in IMFT for 3D-Xpoint, I just hope the product line diversification doesn't lessen the work to make 3D-Xpoint cheaper & even greater capacities.
    Reply
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, November 9, 2018 - link

    >You are taking this way too personally.

    Talk about projecting. Micron is taping out dozens of products across different product segments for all kinds of users. They're working on 3D-Xpoint and QLC stuff simultaneously and independently from each other. What's happening here is that Micron is producing QLC NAND for this Crucial M.2 SSD, and you're here taking it personally (and therefore whining in a free news article comments section) that Micron isn't focusing enough on 3D-Xpoint and that supposedly their QLC is bad for some reason. Thing is, this news article isn't for you. This technology isn't for you. You decided your tech needs are above what this product is aimed for: affordable, large volume SSDs for lower prices.

    Seriously, calm down. This wasn't an assault orchestrated by Micron against people that need/want higher performance storage options. More 3D-Xpoint stuff will come your way if that's the technology you're looking forward to. Again back to my main point, it's going to take some time for these newer technologies to roll out. Until then, don't whine in comments sections that X isn't the Y you were waiting for. If the article is about technology X, make a half-decent effort keep to the topic about technology X.
    Reply
  • mathew7 - Tuesday, November 13, 2018 - link

    "I'll keep enjoying the larger storage capacities at cheaper prices so that I can eventually migrate my Home NAS to a completely solid state solution."
    Wwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaattttt?? NEVER. You don't understand the SSD limits. I would not do that with SLC (assuming current quality at QLC price).
    Enterprises with SSD NASes only use them for short-term performance storage with hourly/daily backup. Anyone who uses them differently is asking for a disaster.
    Look for linuxconf Intel SSD. There is a presentation where they explain how reading a cell damages nearby cells and manufacturers need to monitor this a relocate the data that is only read.
    I have 2 servers with only 1 SSD each for OS and 8-10TB HDDs for my actual long-term data.
    All my desktops/laptops have SSDs (Intel 320, Samsung 830-860 evo+pro, Crucial BX100/MX300 etc). But anything important on SSDs will be backed-up to HDDs.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now