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!
The focus here should be on the burst read (blue bars) performance, as that translates directly to how random reads will actually 'feel' when using the system. It's interesting to see how far behind the BX300 was in this particular metric, especially considering that its predecessor outpaced it! The MX500 does excellent here – within striking range of the Samsung 850 EVO and PRO. DO note, however, that the Intel 545s (same 3D TLC NAND) actually fares slightly better on reads but not on writes.
SATA SSDs generally just saturate the interface and call it a day. That said, there is still some variance, and the MX500 comes in close to the top across the board, with sequential reads just edging out over the 1TB Samsung 850 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: