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 first thing to consider is just how close all of these random read (blue bar) results are. Sure the 960 EVO wins, but everything else is close. Even the 860 EVO is close, and that is using a SATA interface! For random reads, we do note an expected falloff at the smaller capacities, with the exception of the 960.

For sequential transfers, there's just no beating a solid PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD like the Samsung 960 EVO, though the rest of the field is decently quick given the lower costs of these parts.

This % read sweep chart shows the random QD weighted results between full reads and full writes. We look for a smooth curve here and all SSDs behave as expected with no surprises.

« PreviousNext »