Performance Consistency

Starting things off, our performance consistency test saturates the drive with 4kB random writes for a full hour, with a queue depth of 32, the maximum supported by the AHCI protocol used by SATA and most PCIe drives. This puts the drive's controller under maximum stress and writes enough data to exhaust all free space and spare area on the drive. This is an unrealistic workload for any client use, but it provides a worst-case scenario for long-term heavy use, and it sheds light on how different SSD controllers behave and if their performance will hold up as they fill up.

The average of the last 400 seconds of the test gives us a steady-state IOPS rating that is usually very different from what the manufacturer specifies for a new, empty drive. We also quantify the consistency of the drive's random write performance, and provide plots of the performance over the course of the test.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Performance

The BX200 is off to a poor start, with very low steady-state IOPS where the BX100 managed to place closer to the middle of the pack.

Steady-State 4KB Random Write Consistency

The BX200's consistency is also at the bottom of the chart, indicating that there's wide variability between its best and worst performance even after entering steady-state.

For a brief moment, the BX200 performs almost as advertised, and then for a few minutes it performs well for a budget drive, but when it runs out of cache and spare area, performance hits the floor.

Save for the periodic but infrequent excursions to 9k IOPS and 20-25k IOPS, the BX200's steady-state hovers between 200 and 700 IOPS: better than a hard drive, but not what we want to see from a SSD.

Introduction, The Drive & The Test AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer
POST A COMMENT

86 Comments

View All Comments

  • npz - Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - link

    Yes but that is mostly up to retailers since MSRP is already lower than other brand's msrp. I just got the OZC Trion 960GB for $279 recently for example. I hope for their own sake they do cut the price down. At the same time it'll be hard for them short term without Micron TLC being produced en masse. Reply
  • 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now