AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

The ADATA XPG GAMMIX S10 doesn't handle the Heavy test much better than the Intel 600p did. Both deliver a lower average data rate than many SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

Both the average and 99th percentile latency scores of the GAMMIX S10 on the Heavy test are a clear improvement over the Intel 600p, but both drives are behind mainstream SATA drives and even further behind the TLC NVMe competition.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average read latency of the GAMMIX S10 is slightly better than most SATA SSDs, but substantially higher than the typical NVMe SSD. The average write latency is more of a problem, as it is generally higher than mainstream SATA SSDs.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the GAMMIX S10 is good, beating some MLC-based NVMe SSDs and any SATA SSD. The 99th percentile write latency is only slightly better than the Intel 600p, and both have a serious problem with controlling write latency.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The power consumption of the GAMMIX S10 on the Heavy test is typical for most NVMe SSDs. Good SATA SSDs use much less energy over the course of the test, but few current NVMe SSDs can match the efficiency of SATA, and the GAMMIX S10 isn't one of them.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Flunk - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link

    Even a proper heatspreader doesn't cool the underlying components, to do that you need fins to dissipate heat. Add fins to a heatspreader then you have a heatsink. I'm not saying heatspeaders are worthless, but they don't do much unless attached to something else.
  • ddriver - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link

    The heatspreader will work, if it has good contact with the chip, which it doesn't.

    The purpose of the heat spreader is ... well... to spread heat. This gives you more surface to displace heat. Fins serve to increase the head-spreading effect further, although for this product in particular I doubt fins are necessary. In fact, as I mentioned above, the way the heatspreader is implemented and the pathetic performance itself suggest that the cooling solution is 100% unneeded, and present purely for cosmetic purposes.
  • znd125 - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link

    Information on the die/channel configuration is lacking in many SSD reviews by Billy Tallis. This information is especially important for SSDs using non-power-of-2 density NAND chips, which often result in awkward die/channel configurations that consequently lead to low performance. Tallis rarely discusses this.

    It is not enough to simply state "... severely reduced performance potential due to not being able to populate every channel of the controller with NAND flash chips". I expect more from AT articles. If not every, how many channels are populated? How many dies are in each channel? Are they evenly distributed? Tell us exactly how the channels are populated and then you can go on to judge whether that is good or bad.

    As another example, Tom's Hardware in their Intel 600p review pointed out the drive was able to use only 6 of the 8 channels. Tallis did not. To me, that is not a trivial piece of information. That is THE reason the 600p does not reach its "performance potential" IMO.
  • Ratman6161 - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link

    While I too would be interested to see the information you are seeking, I don't think its a critical flaw in the article. For those interested in making a buying decision, its the performance scores and the price and the price/performance equation that matter. Other information is useful if you want to know why one performs better than another. However, with nearly all SSD reviews these days, I usually end up just skimming through to the conclusion. If its a SATA drive, all I really want to know is where is its price/performance ration vs a Samsung 850 EVO. If its NVMe then the price/performance comparison is against the 960 EVO. is something I really would like to see more of. When drives are tested I would like to see the same drive tested in different sizes...which is kind of getting into what you are talking about indirectly. For example, in all the charts you can see a pretty substantial difference between the 1TB and 250 GB 960 EVO's. It really would be nice to see a 512 GB in there. A drive that wins at 1 TB may not win at 512 GB. Unfortunately when I was buying the 512 is what was in my price range and I had to do some digging for information on that. THG actually did review all three sizes.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - link

    Assuming the conclusion is right about next year's controllers being massively better than the current generation they can't get here soon enough. None of the controllers currently available to the down market OEMs are remotely competitive with samsung's last few generations of parts.
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, October 29, 2017 - link

    Adatas strategy seems to be: make many bad SSDs with fancy names and hope someones buys them by accident. Otherwise I can't explain this and the preceeding drives.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now