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. Scores are overall great here across the board, with the 860's seeing an incremental improvement over their predecessors. The highest low-QD read IOPS came from the 4TB PRO model – that >20k value nearly surpasses some NVMe products (not listed on this chart)!
SATA SSDs generally just saturate the interface and call it a day. That said, there is still some variance. We see a boost to PRO models in reads, while the SLC caches of the EVO models maintain competitive writes.