Performance Comparisons – Mixed Burst
These are the Mixed Burst results introduced in the Samsung 850 EVO 4TB Review. Some tweaks have been made, namely, QD reduced to a more realistic value of 2. Read bursts have been increased to 400MB each. 'Download' speed remains unchanged.
In an attempt to better represent the true performance of hybrid (SLC+TLC) SSDs and to include some general trace-style testing, I’m trying out a new test methodology. First, all tested SSDs are sequentially filled to 100%. Then the first 8GB span is pre-conditioned with 4KB random workload, resulting in the condition called out for in many of Intel’s client SSD testing guides. The idea is that most of the data on an SSD is sequential in nature (installed applications, MP3, video, etc), while some portions of the SSD have been written to in a random fashion (MFT, directory structure, log file updates, other randomly written files, etc). The 8GB figure is reasonably practical since 4KB random writes across the whole drive is not a workload that client SSDs are optimized for (it is reserved for enterprise). We may try larger spans in the future, but for now, we’re sticking with the 8GB random write area.
Using that condition as a base for our workload, we now needed a workload! I wanted to start with some background activity, so I captured a BitTorrent download:
This download was over a saturated 300 Mbit link. While the average download speed was reported as 30 MB/s, the application’s own internal caching meant the writes to disk were more ‘bursty’ in nature. We’re trying to adapt this workload to one that will allow SLC+TLC (caching) SSDs some time to unload their cache between write bursts, so I came to a simple pattern of 40 MB written every 2 seconds. These accesses are more random than sequential, so we will apply it to the designated 8GB span of our pre-conditioned SSD.
Now for the more important part. Since the above ‘download workload’ is a background task that would likely go unnoticed by the user, we also need is a workload that the user *would* be sensitive to. The times where someone really notices their SSD speed is when they are waiting for it to complete a task, and the most common tasks are application and game/level loads. I observed a round of different tasks and came to a 200MB figure for the typical amount of data requested when launching a modern application. Larger games can pull in as much as 2GB (or more), varying with game and level, so we will repeat the 200MB request 10 times during the recorded portion of the run. We will assume 64KB sequential access for this portion of the workload.
Assuming a max Queue Depth of 4 (reasonable for typical desktop apps), we end up with something that looks like this when applied to a couple of SSDs:
The OCZ Trion 150 (left) is able to keep up with the writes (dashed line) throughout the 60 seconds pictured, but note that the read requests occasionally catch it off guard. Apparently, if some SSDs are busy with a relatively small stream of incoming writes, read performance can suffer, which is exactly the sort of thing we are looking for here.
When we applied the same workload to the 4TB 850 EVO (right), we see an extremely consistent and speedy response to all IOs, regardless of if they are writes or reads. The 200MB read bursts are so fast that they all occur within the same second, and none of them spill over due to other delays caused by the simultaneous writes taking place.
Now that we have a reasonably practical workload, let’s see what happens when we run it on a small batch of SSDs:
From our Latency Percentile data, we are able to derive the total service time for both reads and writes, and independently show the throughputs seen for both. Remember that these workloads are being applied simultaneously, as to simulate launching apps or games during a 20 MB/s download. The above figures are not simple averages – they represent only the speed *during* each burst. Idle time is not counted.
Well now that was unexpected! Among the SATA parts compared here (850 EVO included), it looks like the 545S has turned in the highest read *and* write throughputs for this test!
Now we are going to focus only on reads, and present some different data. I’ve added up the total service time seen during the 10x 400MB reads that take place during the recorded portion of the test. These figures represent how long you would be sitting there waiting for 4GB of data to be read, but remember this is happening while a download (or another similar background task) is simultaneously writing to the SSD. This metric should closely equate to the 'feel' of using each SSD in a moderate to heavy load.
Great showing for the 545S here, nearly beating Intel's own NVMe client SSD.
What am I missing here? It
What am I missing here? It seems like lower perf than 850 Evo while costing slightly more.
It beats the EVO in the mixed
It beats the EVO in the mixed workload test and comes very close to it in the others.
I would hope for more…
I would hope for more… given that 850 Evo was released a long time ago, and it’s halfway in 2017 already.
You hoped wrong. Not much has
You hoped wrong. Not much has changed in the SSD space and the technology has plateaued due to sata limitations. What was hoped here is slightly better performance at a similar price point. This was achieved.
People reaching for the Intel hate from a cloud of ignorance and inexperience is getting old fast. Let alone the preaching from users who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Cool story?
No need to bring
Cool story?
No need to bring in a totally irrelevant point into the discussion. I dunno what the hell the last paragraph was about, but at least you let your inner struggles out. Or maybe in your world expecting or hoping for more is Intel hate.
Sata limitations limit bandwidth, randoms don’t saturate that much.
If you can’t beat performance you win in price.
Hoped wrongly? Lol okay buddy.
Higher performance… in one test, mixed? Not a clear cut win.
Agreed, Dark wizzle. Would go
Agreed, Dark wizzle. Would go Samsung 960 Evo PCIe over this every time.
The 545S is meant for those
The 545S is meant for those upgrading an HDD-equipped laptop or desktop (which might not have an M.2 slot), and the 960 EVO costs $40 more, which not everyone can afford, despite the better performance.
Fair enough. But in that
Fair enough. But in that scenario I’d just grab an ADATA SU800 which is $140 with promo code right now on Newegg.
You aren’t every user.
What
You aren’t every user.
What is so challenging for people to understand about this product and review?
“But in that scenario I’d
“But in that scenario I’d just grab an ADATA SU800”
But with that your gambling on non-brand name SSD’s and a lower warranty as it’s 3 year vs 5 year with Intel and other name brands. basically a manufacturers warranty on a SSD pretty much speaks volumes about the quality of the product.
I got a Intel 545s 128GB SSD for only $31.99 in July 2018 as that’s hands down the best SSD I have found for around $30 even though it’s normal price, which is around $50 or a bit more, makes it far less appealing to where your better off going with something else and a larger capacity as to me 120-128GB range SSD’s are not worth more than around $30 as much beyond that your better off going to a 250GB range SSD etc. basically 120-128GB range SSD’s are mostly good for internet machines and not much beyond that because as a general rule I suggest most people get at least a 250GB range SSD and if your a gamer the 500GB range ones are the sweet spot right now in terms of capacity/price combo.
but for the most part I would be cautious buying SSD’s that are not from Crucial/Intel/Samsung (and maybe a small amount of other brands like Western Digital) if you want more proven quality as venturing outside of those can save you a bit of $ but your gambling on quality/longevity and less warranty to. personally I would straight up avoid the generic brands if you want reliability as to me it’s not worth saving a little $ for a drive that might not last nearly as long.
So that’s nice and all, but
So that’s nice and all, but where’s consumer Optane ? Take my money Intel !
I think it was supposed to be
I think it was supposed to be late this year.
More fast sata competition is
More fast sata competition is a good thing – we need nand prices to resume their historical downward trend..
Meh, if you have to put “(for
Meh, if you have to put “(for an Intel SSD)” then its not a good deal. Not feeling to gold award on this, maybe bronze or silver.
more substandard tlc shit for
more substandard tlc shit for way too much money
should be 10cents/gig for this shit already
You seem to act like TLC is
You seem to act like TLC is crap when it’s far from it as the bottom line is TLC is still plenty fast and write endurance is great as just about any modern SSD (or semi-modern) should be able to crack at least ‘7x TBW’ which means if one wrote 20GB per day EVERY SINGLE DAY it would last at least 10+ years (i.e. 73TB of written data in 10 years @ 20GB per day) and the vast majority of people won’t consistently write that much data to it day-after-day.
or put it this way… unless your going crazy with writing data to the drive one should be able to get a EASY 5+ years of life from a modern SSD. but I would expect to see 10+ years in general. say one wrote 40GB a day that should be able to do at least 5+ years of use out of it but I would expect comfortably beyond that as 40GB of writes per day is 14.6TB per year and in 10 years that 146TB of writes and it’s not unrealistic for a 7x TBW rated drive to hit that amount of writes and 40GB is a lot of data writing per day for the vast majority of people. plus, 10 years is a lot of time for technology advancement to as how many people who get a SATA SSD now will still be using it in 10 years? ; some, but probably not too many especially if the computer they have it in is obsolete in that time (like if it’s not at least a decent internet machine I don’t see people hanging onto it for long). plus, even a 500GB range SSD today, which is about the top end of what most people would buy today (in Sep 2018) in terms of SATA SSD’s, is not that much storage space either and will be that much less in 10 years.
also, from the looks of things… the official TBW rating tends to be conservative which means in the real world they will likely last quite a bit beyond the official TBW rating before actual failure occurs from writing data to the drive.
To make sure I’m
To make sure I’m understanding correctly: do you actually fill the drive with data for each of your % testing? Like, you just throw large files/large amounts of files on the drive such as movies or something?
Just wanting to make sure I’m fully grasping the testing methodology.
(Sorry, logged in now)
And
(Sorry, logged in now)
And would you recommend this testing methodology for older SSDs that are only MLC? I’ve got a PNY XLR8 Pro 480GB SSD that’s about 1.5 years old that I’d be interested in testing using your method.
Yes, the drive is filled with
Yes, the drive is filled with actual files during the sequence. They are large files meant to replicate bulk media being stored over time. The random portion remains the same size and in the same location during the test. This is all to get as close as we can to what actually happens to an SSD in real world use.
I’m still rocking Intel first
I’m still rocking Intel first generation client SSDs and Intel SSDs are the only vendor I use. I’ve never had one fail yet. Awesome and detailed review Allyn!!
If you mean still using
If you mean still using X25-M’s — a modern “good” SSD will be very noticeably faster..
I’m still using 320 series. I
I’m still using 320 series. I can’t believe it’s already 6 years old, but it’s still going strong (according to Intel’s SSD Toolbox, still 100% life remaining, which I don’t fully trust).
Why did I ever worry about SSD endurance?
“Why did I ever worry about
“Why did I ever worry about SSD endurance?”
I heard bad things about SSD’s in the earlier days. but anything semi-modern should last a long time.
also, I would not really look at ‘life remaining’ as I would look at TBW which is the amount of data written to the drive as that’s the best indicator of about how much life you got left in it assuming the drive only fails from writing data to it.
sure, I realize the SSD’s could fail out of no where on something else but chances are unless you got a faulty SSD it should easily last many years with a brand name SSD like Samsung/Crucial/Intel (and possibly some others).
in my main PC I got a Samsung 850 EVO 250GB, which I had since May 2015, and here it is 3 years and 4 months later and 12.3TB are written to it (it’s rated @ 75TBW but will likely go well beyond that before actual failure occurs from writes). so basically I am in the ball park of 4TB a year. so at my current rate, assuming the drive only fails from writing data to it, I would see 20+ years of use out of it. NOTE: the amount of data written to the Samsung SSD be noticeably higher had I not used my regular hard drives which is where I put my larger files which are video files. but then again just about any SSD’s that are more affordable currently (i.e. 500GB and less is where I expect most people to be interested in currently) are not all that large to where many will need a regular hard drive.
but as we start to see larger capacity SSD’s drop in price I suspect it will be more likely ill start using some for larger data on them which will increase the amount of writing I do on the drive quite a bit. but as the SSD’s TBW ratings start to get into the 100’s of TBW it gets to the point you can just simply use them and do pretty much whatever you want and don’t even worry about how much data your writing because the drive will still easily last 5+ years.
We do LUV you,
We do LUV you, Allyn.
However, does your new test suite mean
that we won’t be seeing ATTO numbers for
Intel’s upcoming 2.5″ NVMe Optane? 🙂
p.s.
Bumper sticker seen in Oregon:
CONSTANT CHANGE IS HERE TO STAY.
Pleasant surprise,as this
Pleasant surprise,as this year has been the-
“race to the bottom in SATA SSD’s”
Seems to have fixed the latency problems of first gen(MX300)
Be interesting to see if Crucial brings this NAND to us
with a Marvel controller.
A 850EVO killer it’s not but it’s close enough to consider
if it’s priced right………………