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 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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Q300's average data rate during The Destroyer was slightly better than the Trion 100 480GB, and puts the Q300 around the middle of the pack and well ahead of the Crucial BX200. It's also slightly ahead of the Plextor M6V, a drive that uses MLC flash and prioritizes power efficiency over performance.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The average service time of the Q300 on The Destroyer is considerably worse than the Trion 100, and near the bottom of the chart. The performance consistency test showed the Q300 as significantly more variable than the Trion 100 before reaching steady state, so this result isn't inexplicable.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The Q300 has more severe latency outliers than the Trion 100, though neither drive is great at limiting latency.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

The Q300 shows improved power efficiency over the Trion 100, but the MLC drives are all better.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • kmmatney - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    I upgraded my laptop from a Samsung 830 to a SanDisk Ultra II 980GB (TLC + SLC cache) and the Ultra II is noticeably faster in everyday use. Anand reviewed it a while back and it was one of the lower powered drives as well - in fact more efficient than MX100 according to the review.
  • Oyster - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    I have a radical suggestion, guys. Can you please start review articles with the price comparison? This (price comparison) just seems out of place since the rest of the product attributes are already being compared to the competition on the first page. I often find myself jumping between the first and the last pages just to compare items. Plus there have been times when I have just skipped to the last page just for the price comparison... case in point, some of the ridiculously-priced mechanical keyboards - I know they're not even worth my time at $150.

    Also, when are you implementing single-page views??? :)
  • nathanddrews - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    Hopefully never. If you want single-page, just click "Print This Article":
  • aggressor - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    Is this really considered their first retail drive? What about the Toshiba THNSNH model they released in 2013? I have one of them and it was retail boxed.
  • jjj - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    You should include PCIe drives in the results as prices are becoming more reasonable and the high end SATA models less appealing.
  • ddriver - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    Toshiba needs to reevaluate their pricing - 140$ for the 480GB model is far from a good deal considering that for 20$ extra you can get an evo which is significantly faster, has significantly longer warranty period and has 20GB extra capacity.
  • mczak - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    I wonder how the different Q300 differ and compare to each other?
    There's two series available: Q300 RG4 (models starting with HDTS7xxx) and Q300 RG5 (HDTS8xxx). The RG5 seems to be newer, I assume different flash (the tested one can be identified as a RG4 in the picture). But for all I know they could have completely different characteristics despite Toshiba wanting to believe you it's all the same...
  • mczak - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    I suppose actually flash is going to be the difference - 15nm vs 19nm, so it would be like a Trion 150 (though the Trion 150 had 3 differences vs. the Trion 100, 15nm flash instead of 19nm, newer firmware (with larger SLC buffer), plus a thermal pad for the controller chip, the latter was likely the reason it had faster sustained write performance, and those other differences might not carry over to the Q300 - so there might not be much difference in the end after all).
  • harrynsally - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    ?????? it appears that Toshiba's strategy may have been to use the Trion 100's earlier release to make sure everything was working properly before releasing the Q300 to catch the eye of a wider audience??????

    Just checked Newegg Trion 100 owner reviews.

    44% rated the 120GB drive 1 star and 41% rated the 240GB drive 1 star.

    Appears that OCZ SSDs still lack in quality, reliability and performance,
  • wagon153 - Friday, February 26, 2016 - link

    You're taking Newegg reviews serious? Lol. The Kingston V300 has 4 stars and is as bad, if not worse then, old OCZ drives.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now