AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

Our AnandTech Storage Bench tests are traces (recordings) of real-world IO patterns that are replayed onto the drives under test. The Destroyer is the longest and most difficult phase of our consumer SSD test suite. For more details, please see the overview of our 2021 Consumer SSD Benchmark Suite.

ATSB The Destroyer
Average Data Rate
Average Latency Average Read Latency Average Write Latency
99th Percentile Latency 99th Percentile Read Latency 99th Percentile Write Latency
Energy Usage

On The Destroyer, ADATA's S50 Lite offers similar overall performance to good PCIe Gen3 drives and the early Gen4 drives based on the Phison E16 controller. The power consumption is also similar to the Phison E16 drives, which is a bit disappointing since the S50 Lite's SM2267 controller is just a four-channel design, which should save a bit of power.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

The ATSB Heavy test is much shorter overall than The Destroyer, but is still fairly write-intensive. We run this test twice: first on a mostly-empty drive, and again on a completely full drive to show the worst-case performance.

ATSB Heavy
Average Data Rate
Average Latency Average Read Latency Average Write Latency
99th Percentile Latency 99th Percentile Read Latency 99th Percentile Write Latency
Energy Usage

As with The Destroyer, we see the S50 Lite's performance on the Heavy test falling in the same general range as the top PCIe Gen3 drives, and it is clearly slower than top of the line Gen4 drives. The S50 Lite also has somewhat disappointing performance on the full-drive test runs, with higher write latencies than we'd like to see from a TLC drive. Power efficiency continues to be poor, though it is within the normal range for high-performance drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

The ATSB Light test represents ordinary everyday usage that doesn't put much strain on a SSD. Low queue depths, short bursts of IO and a short overall test duration mean this should be easy for any SSD. But running it a second time on a full drive shows how even storage-light workloads can be affected by SSD performance degradation.

ATSB Light
Average Data Rate
Average Latency Average Read Latency Average Write Latency
99th Percentile Latency 99th Percentile Read Latency 99th Percentile Write Latency
Energy Usage

On the Light test, the S50 Lite appropriately does well, with slightly better overall performance than any of the PCIe Gen3 drives, and decent full-drive performance with no concerning latency scores.

PCMark 10 Storage Benchmarks

The PCMark 10 Storage benchmarks are IO trace based tests similar to our own ATSB tests. For more details, please see the overview of our 2021 Consumer SSD Benchmark Suite.

PCMark 10 Storage Traces
Full System Drive Overall Score Average Bandwidth Average Latency
Quick System Drive Overall Score Average Bandwidth Average Latency
Data Drive Overall Score Average Bandwidth Average Latency

The ADATA S50 Lite underperforms on all three of the PCMark 10 Storage tests. The most important comparison here is probably the Intel 670p, which uses basically the same controller and theoretically inferior QLC NAND. But the 670p's firmware is tuned so that it gets the most benefit out of its SLC cache on all three of these tests, which clearly isn't happening for the S50 Lite.

Introduction Synthetic Tests: Basic IO Patterns
POST A COMMENT

93 Comments

View All Comments

  • Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    'At least'? QLC is a downgrade, not an upgrade. Reply
  • Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link

    Never wrote that the A400 was upgraded ;)

    Sorry, I´m not a native english speaking person
    Reply
  • Tomatotech - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    I've run an ADATA XPG SX8200 (non-pro) 1TB for the past 3+ years in my MacBook Pro as the system drive. Been very happy with it, and still blistering fast even now. Was approx 3x faster read & 4x faster write than the Apple OEM SSD, made a big difference to the feel of my MPB.

    As to changing components, not brilliant, but perhaps inevitable over the life of a long-lived model. Most SSD brands are not full-stack manufacturers, and supply / cost of sub-components is outside their control. As long as it meets the specs on the box and isn't crippled (like silently changing HDD models to HAMR mechanism without stating on the box).

    Anandtech was quite accepting of companies changing SSD components on their middle-low end lines in the last SSD roundup. The 8200 Pro launched around 3 years ago, and while it's still damn fast for most people, I'd call it middle of the road now that PCIe 4.0 is here.
    Reply
  • Scour - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    I would prefer a new model-name if other components are used. Reply
  • MrCommunistGen - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    +1

    They could easily have done this a number of ways:
    1. add a letter to the end of the model with each rev, SX8200A, SX8200B
    2. add Mk1, Mk2, etc.
    3. increment the model number by +1 every time, SX8201, SX8202, etc

    Each of these signify that it's still a related product aimed at the same market segment, while communicating that it isn't the exact same hardware that was reviewed when the product initially came out.
    Reply
  • Scour - Sunday, May 2, 2021 - link

    I still think the main reason is to use a model name which had good reviews.

    And maybe it costs 10 cents more/piece if you order new packages with a new model number
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    And yet Intel, which was mentioned on the first page, has been at the forefront of pushing the anti-value QLC trash.

    Which would you rather choose? A company that is openly hostile to consume value or one that changes parts surreptitiously?

    Nvidia is reportedly going to surreptitiously sell some 3060s with its latest anti-mining thing, without bothering to let consumers know which type they're getting for their money. Things like that should be illegal but the world is not governed adequately. Caveat emptor rules. The panel lottery for TVs is a huge example of the surreptitiousness fraud.
    Reply
  • bji - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    Holy crap man, will you get off of your anti-QLC rant already? Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    Ad hominem won't change reality. In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns.

    Moreover, every dollar consumers spend on QLC reduces the price value of TLC by reducing TLC production.

    I'm not sorry that I'm ruffling the feathers of various QLC-peddling corporations by posting the truth. Being attacked for it is hardly unexpected. It's how business communication works.
    Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Friday, April 30, 2021 - link

    "In reality, QLC offers only 30% more density for double the voltage states. That is diminished returns."

    IFF both TLC and QLC are on the same node size. moving back up to a larger node (and I know not whether that's happened) for QLC could (note the subjunctive) end up with an equivalent NAND density/bit. that, of course, should be the controlling factor.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now