Performance Comparisons – Sequential and Random

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

sr.png

sw.png

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.

SATA SSDs have mostly equalized at saturated interface-limited performance, but some of the older parts here come in a bit lower than the more modern units. The BX300 appears to be the lowest performance, with the Intel 545s showing a hitch at QD=1.

Now for random:

rr.png

rw.png

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 all start at a relatively low value at lower queue depths. The BX300 is particularly weak in random writes but keeps up in reads. Let's move onto the next page to get a better idea of exactly where these drives fall head to head.

« PreviousNext »