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!

Since client workloads lean heavily towards reads, keep a focus on the blue bars above. The random read results for most budget SSDs run from 15-17k here. The RC100's turn in relatively poor scores, even when compared with the MyDigitalSSD SBX units (also on a x2 interface), and they also fall short of SATA parts like the Crucial MX500 and Samsung 860 EVO.

Shifting to random writes (orange bars), not much changes here, and the RC100's remain at the bottom of the pack.

Despite the poor random performance, the RC100's thankfully fare better in sequentals. Reads are at the top of the budget group selected here, and writes are close. Note that the SBX performance falls off at the 250GB capacity point, while the RC100 is still performing well (its falloff does not happen until 120GB – not sampled for review so not included here).

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 real surprises. At QD weighted values, the RC100's are consistent but not as high as we'd like to see given the competing units.

« PreviousNext »