Performance Comparisons – Client QD Weighted
These results attempt to simplify things by focusing on what really matters – the Queue Depths that folks actually see when using these products. A dimension is eliminated from the previous charts by applying a weighted average to those results. The weights were derived from trace recordings of moderate to heavy workloads, which still ended up running closer to QD=1-2 even on a slower SATA SSD. The intent here is to distill the results into something for those wanting 'just the facts' to grab and go when making their purchasing decisions. Don't be alarmed by the low figures. Remember, these are low queue depths – the place where these SSDs actually operate when in use by those not just running benchmarks all day!
Samsung has (rightly) been focused on low QD performance for some time now. They even went as far as to proudly place QD=1 specifications on their product page. It has paid off for them here, as weighing the results towards the more used Queue Depths results in superior real-world performance.
Again, Samsung cleans house in sequentials as well, and the 960 EVOs are not that far behind the 960 PRO (and they both beat the 950 PRO)!