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.

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 WD Blue appears to be the lowest performance here, though it did perform well closer to QD=1, which will be beneficial in our weighted tests later on.

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 all start at a relatively low value at lower queue depths. Even though we are mixing 850 and 860 products in these results, all Samsung SSDs fall into a relatively tight grouping across the board, making it easy to spot the MX500 and WD Blue falling slightly behind in some areas.

« PreviousNext »