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!

Note the tight grouping of random read performance here. At lower QD's, we are mostly waiting for the flash to respond to the read requests, and the majority of SSDs (NVMe or SATA) turn in similar figures for this type of workload. The NX500 is outpaced by many others on random writes, but many of those are benefiting from an SLC cache.

Sequential access is a different story entirely. We see a lot of variance across products here, but for the most part, the NX500 is among the top of the pack, with the exception of the Samsung 960 EVO.

For those curious how these results pan out in comparison to older / other SSDs, here are a couple of rather large charts for your viewing pleasure:

« PreviousNext »