Sequential Performance – HDTach, HDTune, File Copy, YAPT (sequential)
We have shifted over to combining our results into two groupings for consumer reviews. First up is sequential performance:
I have included a different smapling in these charts than the PCIe heavy round included in the original M6e PCIe review. Check there to see those results. The Black should perform identically, as we will confirm below. We also included a RAID-0 pair of 850 EVOs, as we have had some requests to contrast those results against PCIe results.
HD Tach will test the sequential read, random access and interface burst speeds of your attached storage device (hard drive, flash drive, removable drive, etc). All drive technologies such as SCSI, IDE/ATA, 1394, USB, SATA and RAID are supported. HDTach tests sequential performance by issuing reads in a manner that was optimized more for HDD access, but this unique method has proven useful in evaluating the sequential response time of SSDs. The accesses are relatively small in size (2k), and are issued with a single working thread (QD=1). The end result is that devices with relatively IO high latency will not reach their ultimate rated speed.
Slight difference here between the M6e and M6e black, likely due to the Black being tested with a newer firmware revision.
HDTune tests a similar level of features as compared with HDTach, but with a different access pattern. Thus provides us with an additional set of benchmark numbers to compare between storage configurations. CPU utilization has proven negligible with modern processing horsepower, and is no longer included. Additionally, we do not include write performance due to HDTune's write access pattern not playing nicely with most SSDs we have tested it on.
HDTune uses much larger block transfer sizes than HDTach (when configured to do so). The M6e and M6e Black are able to gain another 100+ MB/sec over SATA units, but that can be overcome easily with a simple SATA RAID.
PCPer File Copy Test
Our custom PCPer-FC test does some fairly simple file creation and copy routines in order to test the storage system for speed. The script creates a set of files of varying sizes, times the creation process, then copies the same files to another partition on the same hard drive and times the copy process. There are four file sizes that we used to try and find any strong or weak points in the hardware: 10 files @ 1000 MB each, 100 files @ 100 MB each, 500 files @ 10 MB each and 1000 files at 1 MB each.
The tool that does the file creation does so in a single threaded manner, so the M6e's do perform well here, but they are still beaten by very low latency SATA devices like the Samsung 850 Pro and Crucial M550.
File copies uses the standard Windows copy, and the added threading of this operation gives the M6e a slight advantage here.
YAPT (yet another performance test) is a benchmark recommended by a pair of drive manufacturers and was incredibly difficult to locate as it hasn't been updated or used in quite some time. That doesn't make it irrelevant by any means though, as the benchmark is quite useful. It creates a test file of about 100 MB in size and runs both random and sequential read and write tests with it while changing the data I/O size in the process. The misaligned nature of this test exposes the read-modify-write performance of SSDs and Advanced Format HDDs.
Despite its age, YAPT is able to give is fairly accurate throughput figures for multi-GB/sec transfers. While the M6e reads and writes faster than all single SATA devices in this test.