Performance Comparisons – Sequential and Random
Just as we did on the last page, I'll start us off with Sequentials:
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.
The NX500 (light blue) does well here, but lower QD reads were noted to be considerably lower than competing units (more on the impact of that on the next page).
Now for random:
While typical usage rarely exceeds QD=8, we extend these charts out to 256 for PCIe / NVMe reviews (QD=32 for SATA) to evaluate manufacturers claimed performance maximums. Our exclusive burst test is the only way to properly evaluate the random write performance of caching SSDs. Note how the majority of SSDs (both NVMe and SATA) all start at a relatively low value at lower queue depths. Let's move onto the next page to get a better idea of exactly where these drives fall head to head.