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. I must admit I was not prepared to see the 760p perform so well here. While there is an obvious taper off at the 128GB capacity, would you look at the 256GB coming so close to the 960 EVO, and the 512GB read score actually dethrones the 960 EVO 500GB! An Intel NAND SSD beating Samsung at low queue depth random reads – now there's something I thought I would never see!
Again we see the clear falloff at the lower capacities, but the 256GB and 512GB SSD 760p's trail closely behind the 960 EVO in sequentials.