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 rates of the S700 Pros on The Destroyer are slightly faster than the ATATA SU800 except at the 128GB capacity. The S700's disadvantage relative to the S700 Pro is more pronounced at higher capacities, growing from a 15% gap at the 120GB/128GB capacity range to almost 30% between the 500GB S700 and 512GB S700 Pro.

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

The 250GB S700 surprises with a lower average latency than the 256GB S700 Pro, and at this capacity point and the 500GB/512GB capacity point both HP drives score better than the ADATA SU800. The 99th percentile latency scores aren't as good, with the S700 coming in last place at every capacity point and the S700 Pro only beating the ADATA SU800 in the 256GB capacity.

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

The average read latencies of the HP S700s are almost tied with the S700 Pro at the smallest capacity configuration, but the larger drives show a substantial gap. Average write latencies for the S700 are actually better than the S700 Pro and the ADATA SU800 except for the 120GB capacity.

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

The HP S700 does not have a particular problem with garbage collection getting in the way of read operations as its 99th percentile read latency scores are better than the S700 Pro's scores and are reasonable even when compared to mid-range SATA drives and even drives using MLC. The 99th percentile write latency scores are poor for both the S700 and S700 Pro, but the ADATA SU800 is no better except for its 128GB capacity.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The DRAMless HP S700 is more energy-efficient on The Destroyer than the faster HP S700 Pro, and both beat the ADATA SU800. All of these drives obey the usual pattern of higher capacities offering better efficiency under load thanks to their higher performance being more than enough to offset higher overall power levels.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Comments Locked

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • ddriver - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link

    1.1 - SATA is OK for most tasks, there will be no perceivable difference to a NVME. Besides some NVME drives are almost as slow as SATA drives, such as the p600.

    1.2 - most boards come with a single M2, those that have more are very expensive, and require expensive CPUs to get actual PCIE lanes

    2 - because HP is paying
  • ddriver - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link

    Even the most expensive mobos have at most 3 m2 slots, so if you want more than 3 SSDs, what do you do then? In contrast, even low end mobos come with at least 4 SATA ports.

    You can get some very decent speed from SSDs in raid 0, on top of the higher capacity, SATA ssds go as high as 4TB, m2 cap out at 2TB.
  • 8steve8 - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link

    sure, but do you think most people who can't afford a higher end motherboard are buying more than one SSD for their system?
  • ddriver - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link

    It depends on what you need. You can save plenty on money on mobo and cpu and spend on much affordable sata ssds. Just because you may need to spend 1000$ on storage doesn't mean you have to be forced to spend another 1000 on cpu and mobo.

    A 2 TB evo will cost you 700$, the cheapest and "onlinest" 2TB m2 drive is 1200$ - over 70% more expensive. The mx300 is even cheaper - you can have a full 4 TB for less than 1200$.
  • yankeeDDL - Thursday, September 7, 2017 - link

    Loads of people. I have 3 SATA SSD on my PC and 2 laptops.
    M.2 is still much pricier, so only premium laptop use them, and I find it easier to buy a laptop with a regular HDD, and upgrade it to the SSD of my liking and size. SSD still carry a huge markup on many laptops, and in many cases you cannot even select one which is bigger than 128GB, which is preposterous.
  • sonny73n - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link

    I am still buying SATA SSDs for my OCed Sandy Bridge system. Have 3 SSDs in there but I'm considering a big one for storage.
  • evilspoons - Sunday, September 10, 2017 - link

    Yep, I've got a friggin GTX 1080 in my i7-2600k and a random collection of hard drives and SSDs populating pretty much every SATA port on my ASUS P8Z68-V PRO. M.2? Neato, but... what's that? Lol.

    Up next, I would not mind a nice ol' 2 TB SSD to put the majority of my Steam games on, but I really don't have $1400 CAD to special order an 850 Pro (or Evo). Both of which are SATA, good luck with anything over M.2... I think the 960 Pro is like $1700 CAD?
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 13, 2017 - link

    To the both of you, just use an SM951 or SM961 on a PCIe adapter card. I get very good results with either model on my ASUS M4E, am about to move my main photo/video archive from a 500GB 850 EVO onto a 512GB SM961. I'm getting around 2GB/sec with the SM951, 3GB/sec with the SM961, and even more with SB-E mbds (3.5GB/sec on an R4E). In the UK where I am, the Akasa PCIe adapter card is only about 13 UKP, so the total cost is still less than mainstream SATA SSDs, though I did manage to get a 960 Pro 512GB for a good price for my R4E gaming setup.

    Also, the 950 Pro has its own boot ROM, so on older mbds you can use it as a boot drive via legacy BIOS settings. I know someone who's done this with their X79 and I plan on doing it with my own setups. Alas the 960 Pro does not have its own boot ROM so it can't be used in the same way by default. Other NVMe models also have their own boot ROM though, such as the Intel 750.

    Also, for ASUS X79 systems, there's a thread on the ROG site where a guy is posting modded BIOS files to allow various ASUS mbds to boot from any NVMe SSD, not just units like the 950 Pro. Thus, I plan on replacing my R4E's 850 Pro with a 960 Pro which was originally going to be just for game data alone.

    There's still plenty of life left in older mbds, much to the annoyance I'm sure of Intel and other vendors. :D Beats me though why Samsung didn't include a boot ROM in the 960, that was bizarre.

    PM/email me if you'd like screen captures of these SSDs being tested on various configs (so far mostly an M4E, R4E ans P9X79-E WS), ie. AS-SSD, CDM and Atto.

    Ian.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, September 13, 2017 - link

    Forgot to mention, I also plan on testing them with some P55 and X58 mbds, should be interesting, and perhaps a Striker II Extreme aswell if I have the time. Might try a couple of older AMD boards aswell, I have a few.
  • FunBunny2 - Friday, September 8, 2017 - link

    -- Who is buying SATA SSDs in 2017

    most computers, modulo gamers and stats and RDBMS, don't do much more than e-mail and web surfing. the home PC reached good enough a decade ago. swapping spinning rust for just about any NAND device gets you as much improvement as a new i7 machine. I guess the idle rich would choose the latter, but the rest of us just get a SSD.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now