Performance Comparisons – Sequential and Random

Just as we did on the last page, I'll start us off with Sequentials:

Since the last review, I've tested *a lot* of SSDs on the new suite, but for these comparisons I'm keeping the selection limited to a reasonable 8 devices. I've included mostly NVMe parts, but also tossed in an Intel SSD 750 and an 850 EVO to represent SATA. Recall that all data points here are the result of cumulative sampling across multiple percentages of allocated space. If you see what looks like an outlier or a weird dip, rest assured that apparent aberration was repeatable and consistent.

Speaking to the above two charts, in reads, the 960 EVOs both take a bit of a queue to 'spool up' to to near the throguhput of the 960 PRO, and are actually bested by the 950 PRO at QD=2. Still a very impressive result. Writes are reasonably flat for most SSDs as they hit full speed at QD=1. The 960 EVO 250GB (orange plot line) sits relatively flat at just over 1.5 GB/s, while the 1TB model nips at the heels of the 960 PRO all the way acorss the chart.

Now for random:

While consumer usage rarely exceeds QD=8, we extend these charts out to QD=256 to evaluate manufacturers claimed performance maximums. Our exclusive burst test is the only way to properly evaluate the random write performance of caching SSDs. Here we saw the 250GB 960 EVO clip past 350,000 IOPS, while the 1TB model actually rode so closely to the plot line of the 960 PRO that it is hiding behind it nearly perfectly across the entire plot.

« PreviousNext »