PCMark Vantage and 7
For trace based testing, we are replacing the outdated PCMark 05 results with a pair of newer versions of the same. PCMark Vantage and PCMark 7 results will be included moving forward. We are also running PCMark 8 on samples as we receive them, however we do not yet have sufficient comparative data to make a useful chart. Vantage results tend to be higher as they show more of a raw / peak type of result measured during the trace, while 7 shows more of an averaged value over the time duration of the trace. Translation: Vantage shows max throughput while 7 shows how that throughput impacts overall system performance. You can easily tell the difference by looking at the results of the HDD (VelociRaptor), which scores higher under 7 since the overall system is usually doing other things in addition to accessing storage.
We are considering discontinuation of the PCMark suite in our testing. We have a spread of models included here, which vary legitimately and greatly in metrics for other tests, yet PCMark places them mostly dead even with each other. Further, the test that shows the greatest variance among samples ('Application loading' in Vantage / 'Starting applications' in 7) is nearly an inversion when both sets of results are compared against each other. The SP610 is a clear winner in Vantage but at the bottom of the pack in 7.
Spot checks we've performed with PCMark 8 don't show any improvement in this area – results from a mid-grade SATA SSD were within 1-2% of the results from a recent PCIe SSD capable of 2GB/sec. It appears PCMark is placing far too much weight on things other than storage during their storage-only test. PCMark 8 does have an Expanded Storage Test, but I don't feel its workload pattern is anywhere near what I would consider an actual performance over time metric. Your thoughts are welcome in the comments below.
These new charts are not the
These new charts are not the easiest to read.
Slightly larger text and solid colored bars would help a lot.
I second this. I find them
I second this. I find them very hard to read. The bar charts are okay because they are all in order, but when they wonder around like the line graphs, they’re practically illegible. Add in the mislabeled axies and I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be reading.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Not the easiest graphs to
Not the easiest graphs to read!
Background color hinder very much.
It looks like you mislabeled
It looks like you mislabeled the X axis on the PCPer File Copy Test charts. I’m guessing it’s supposed to be “seconds” rather than “MB/s”.
Agreed. Also, i’m pretty sure
Agreed. Also, i’m pretty sure that for the “IO Meter Average Transaction Time” lower – not higher – should be better.
Thanks for the catch, I’ve
Thanks for the catch, I've re-uploaded corrected versions, and expanded the QD out to 8 on these to more easily see where the drives are headed. Expanding it further would make the lower part of the scale harder to read.
Yeah, I almost went out and
Yeah, I almost went out and bought an ADATA SP610 in 128GB. 🙂 That thing beat everyone!
Got it. Fixed the axis label
Got it. Fixed the axis label on file creation and copy charts. Thanks for reporting this.
Look at how much extra room
Look at how much extra room is available in that 2.5in casing for the 512 and 1tb models! Going with full 16 layer packages and filling up the remaining space with them could yield a 2.5 inch SSD in excess of 3TB. O_O
This tech needs to hurry up and get fully commoditized so Samsung has an incentive to make drives that size and we can actually buy them at reasonable prices. Doing so would put a few more well earned nails in the HDD makers coffins.
hey Allyn when are you
hey Allyn when are you getting the intel 750 pci-e ssd? supposed to be out in Q4 and well… its Q4 now!
Possible error with the YAPT
Possible error with the YAPT chart. Shows queue depth on the bottom when it should be block size(or whatever the correct term would be). Regardless, interesting new benchmark along with a great article.
Fixed, and thanks!
Fixed, and thanks!
I’m wondering, can these
I’m wondering, can these drives perform any faster if connected to 12gb/s SAS ports?
The controller and connector
The controller and connector do not support SAS 12Gbit/sec. Even if connected to an appropriate HBA, the link would fall back to 6Gbit SATA.
As usual I’m late to posting
As usual I’m late to posting comments, but in case anyone notices my post: I have not found any source at Samsung or here where it addresses some sort of “hold-up” protection on the power line in case of a PSU failure. Anyone know?