AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of heavy desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this review. Like real-world usage and unlike our Iometer tests, the drives do get the occasional break that allows for some background garbage collection and flushing caches, but those idle times are limited to 25ms so that it doesn't take all week to run the test.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, a few data points about its latency, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The M6V falls in the middle of the pack for its capacity class, and again its performance is a little behind its sibling with the same controller.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

The middling to poor latency results echo the poor write performance consistency, but these results are nothing too concerning for a client drive designed for a typical consumer workload.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

The SM2246EN continues to deliver impressive power efficiency, though again the BX100 beats the M6V.

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • eddieobscurant - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    when is the samsung 950 pro review coming up? Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link


    I wanted to start with a more straightforward and predictable review to make sure I had the test rig set up correctly. The 950 Pro review calls for some deeper investigation than this one, since it's the first real mainstream consumer NVMe drive and there are custom drivers and stuff like that to investigate.
  • coolhardware - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link

    Sweet action, looking forward to it! :-) Reply
  • Coup27 - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link

    Billy when you do the review for the 950 Pro would you be able to do a couple of paragraphs recapping over SATA Express, PCI Express, M.2, U.2 and anything else related to it? I've half kept up to date but I don't think they've done a great job of keeping it clear either. Reply
  • Xichekolas - Wednesday, October 14, 2015 - link

    Mind having a section on Linux support/compatibility/etc in the 950 review? When you say "custom drivers and stuff like that to investigate" it makes me dread the buy-new-product-wait-a-month-for-kernel-support routine. Reply
  • Billy Tallis - Wednesday, October 14, 2015 - link

    As I understand it, the custom drivers for NVMe is a thing everybody is doing to get around the limitations of Microsoft's driver, like not being able to send administrative commands to the drive (including the equivalent of secure erase). At least some of the features of Samsung's SSD Magician software will probably require their NVMe driver. I have yet to encounter a custom NVMe driver for Linux, only vendor-specific management tools.

    Anyways, the 950 Pro review's section on compatibility will be as thorough as I have time and resources for. I've done some work to equip our testbed to measure PCIe power consumption for the first time, which means I really should re-test the SM951 and XP941 for comparison's sake.
  • Cliff34 - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    Thanks for the review. But it seems like these days if the SSDs cannot differentiate themselves either in price (cheaper the better), speed (faster the better) and reliability (the longer the better), there's very little incentive to buy a SSD that's somewhere in the middle.

    If you want value, get the BX100 (or one that's on sale) or if you want speed, get the Samsung 850 Pro or the Sandisk Extreme Pro.
  • zodiacfml - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    Even Intel/Micron isn't sure if they can compete with Samsung. Reply
  • MagickChicken - Wednesday, October 14, 2015 - link

    So am I right in thinking that this generation of consumer-grade SATA SSDs operates roughly 50% better than my current SSD, the Vertex 3?

    Seems like there'd be a higher increase in performance over four years considering how new the market was in 2011, though I'm certainly not going to knock the 50-60% drop in $/GB. Or is there a more significant change in the benchmarks that I'm not picking up on?
  • Billy Tallis - Sunday, October 18, 2015 - link

    Some of the benchmark metrics are simply hitting SATA limits on bandwidth and latency. Others are constrained by the limited parallelism of interactive I/O, so the fundamental performance limits of NAND flash are showing through.

    Also keep in mind that pretty much all NAND production advances have been used to drive down cost, not to improve performance or reliability. We could be making SLC that's cheaper than the MLC used in early SATA SSDs, but the market prefers increased capacity and that's why we have TLC drives now and complicated slow error correction methods to keep them mostly working.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now