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 of the 1TB Samsung PM981 on The Destroyer is comparable to the 960 EVO 1TB and well ahead of any competing TLC-based drives like the Toshiba XG5. The 512GB PM981 is slower by a typical amount, and still faster than any of the non-Samsung drives of that size.

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

The 1TB PM981 shows a substantial improvement over the average and 99th percentile latency scores of the 960 EVO, putting it close to the 960 PRO. The 512GB PM981 isn't as impressive, with latency scores that fall behind most MLC-based NVMe SSDs.

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

The 1TB PM981 sets a new record (among flash-based SSDs) for average read latency on The Destroyer, shaving a few microseconds off the 960 PRO's performance. The average write latency can't quite keep up with the MLC-based 960 PRO that doesn't use SLC write caching. The smaller 512GB PM981 is competitive with most similarly-sized MLC-based drives, but slower than Samsung's 960 PRO.

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

Samsung's 99th percentile read latency is nothing special, though the PM981 does offer clear improvement over the 960 EVO. The 99th percentile write latency of the 1TB PM981 is excellent and far better than the 1TB 960 EVO. The 512GB PM981 is clearly the fastest TLC-based drive of that size that we've tested, but it doesn't quite match the 99th percentile latency scores of the MLC-based competition.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

53 Comments

View All Comments

  • peevee - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    The most important parameter is the sustained random read, when the user have to actually wait (buffered writes let you continue working right away and it is almost impossible to overflow write caches during normal desktop usage).
    And even SSDs continue to suck in this parameter. 60MB/s? Booo...
    Although testing on 4k random is too strict, NTFS runs are usually 16 clusters (64k).
    Reply
  • wyewye - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    This is why I stopped coming to Anandtech daily: you keep excluding top offers from Intel in your SSD benchmarks.

    Samsung shills!
    Reply
  • ddriver - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    LOL, second funniest thing I heard this week Reply
  • ddrіver - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    The first one was actually a joke with a priest and a rabbi... Can't really remember the punchline now. Reply
  • lilmoe - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    Thank you, competing OEMs. Thanks to you, Samsung isn't even trying anymore. Just when I thought they'd introduce 64 layer SLC, they decide to go full TLC, because why try harder? Screw you too, Samsung. Reply
  • ddrіver - Thursday, November 30, 2017 - link

    Exactly my point. It's not so hard for them to go to 64 or 128 or even 256 layer SLC, with even an 8TB SSD. That should be in the range of $500-$600 to be competitive. Instead they choose to deliver a drive that simply doesn't massively improve on every single data point relative to the old generation. It might be good for 95% of consumers but they don't even think of us, professionals.

    Just downloading a game nowadays takes 50-100GB of SSD writes. At this rate who know how long I'm going to be able to use this kind of SSD. Greedy people selling to sheeple. Wake up!
    Reply
  • zodiacfml - Friday, December 1, 2017 - link

    Samsung, like Intel, has no competition taking their sweet time with each iteration. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, December 2, 2017 - link

    In many cases Samsung costs more and has less endurance; the competition is better. Reply
  • melgross - Friday, December 1, 2017 - link

    It’s good to see that manufacturers are so far in advance of where they already are:

    “Other M.2 PCIe SSD vendors have used that tactic and many have also released drives with more substantial heatspreaders or heatsinks in the future.”
    Reply
  • trumanhw - Sunday, December 31, 2017 - link

    1TB 960 Pro looks like it's the shiznit. By far my choice... cost per dollar, and as they said, impunity to the negatives seen in other sizes and models. Where it's not the first, it's so close in the other positions as to require measurement to verify. As always, thank you anand -- you guys rock. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now