AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy

Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionately 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 the 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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

On an empty drive, the M6V performs almost identically to the Crucial BX100 and several other drives, but when starting with a full drive the M6V suffers more.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The average service time doesn't differentiate the M6V much from its neighbors on this ranking.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

There's a marked difference in the number of latency outliers for the M6V and all of the drives below it on this chart. The M6V's higher average service time is due to it being consistently a little slower than the BX100, rather than occasionally a lot slower.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The M6V has now very slightly surpassed the BX100 to take the top spot for power consumption.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer AnandTech Storage Bench - Light
POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • StrangerGuy - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    Yet another new SSD article on AT that ends up showing how it gets destroyed by Samsung in overall specs/price. Reply
  • franz899 - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    Actually the Crucial BX100 is a better choice looking at the scores. Reply
  • medi03 - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    Nope, not to note it isn't even present on many screens and MX200 is a different product. Reply
  • SmokingCrop - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link

    The BX series is better bang for the buck, you won't notice the speed difference with the popular samsung drives. Reply
  • salimbest83 - Wednesday, October 14, 2015 - link

    im shopping for new 240GB+ ssd. looks like BX100 is the way to go rite?
    Reply
  • Billie Boyd - Friday, November 27, 2015 - link

    I rather go with AMD Radeon R7 series. Its one of the highly rated high drives in the market (see http://www.consumerrunner.com/top-10-best-hard-dri... for example) Reply
  • emn13 - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link

    Assuming this is a low-end drive i.e. cheaper than the 850 pro, it looks like it outperforms the 850 evo mSata pretty much across the board, getting close to crucial's BX100. Reply
  • FriendlyUser - Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - link

    As an owner of 2x840 EVO and 2xPlextor, I can tell you the Samsung's bug was a major disappointment. Read performance after months simply sucks and I had to patch the firmware 2-3 times and regularly "manually" freshen the data with the samsung tool. I have way more confidence in the Plextor firmware. Never again Samsung. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, October 16, 2015 - link

    ...yet another SSD article on AT that focuses on the pointlessness of non-real world benchmarks. Readers will leave this article without having a clue what boot time differences to expect between drives, or any other metric. I've been saying this for years. HardOCP finally caught on. http://tinyurl.com/pvyzmau Reply
  • dj_aris - Monday, October 12, 2015 - link

    What is the purpose of reviewing SATA SSD drives? Anyone in the market for a drive should either buy a spinning HDD for storage or a PCIe for speed. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now