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.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Data Rate)

The CS2211 drives both perform well overall and are bracketing a tight cluster of drives that perform similarly, though some of the competitors don't handle a full drive as well as the CS2211 does. The 240GB CS1311 is roughly tied with its competition while the other two capacities are clearly behind, though not by an embarrassing margin. On such a write-heavy test, it's no big surprise to see the MLC drives running 70% faster than the equivalent planar TLC drive.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

Average service time isn't a strength of either PNY model. The CS2211 is the slowest MLC drive in this bunch, and the CS1311 is the slowest of the lot when full. At 480GB the OCZ Trion 150 retains a clear lead over the other planar TLC drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Latency)

The latency outliers above 10ms put the CS2211 in a favorable light while the CS1311 mostly performs better than the ADATA SP550 but worse than the Trion 150. The huge gap between PNY's MLC and TLC models shows how a write-heavy workload can burn through a drive's pseudo-SLC cache and make TLC's weaknesses felt.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy (Power)

The CS1311's power efficiency is worse than almost everything else, but not horrendously so. The CS2211 is about average. The gap beterrn the 15/16nm TLC drives and the rest of the field is small but clear.

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

43 Comments

View All Comments

  • DanoSpumoni - Saturday, April 16, 2016 - link

    When 2TB SSDs drop below $200 then i'll bite... from the current trend it looks like thats only a couple years away maybe less
  • zodiacfml - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    It has been like that ever since they unleashed V-NAND drives. Despite being on top, I think they are selling them competitively to remove or not allow smaller players to enter.
  • zepi - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    At least in Europe Samsung has priced itself out of the game completely. I've yet to see EVO ever even near the top of the GB per euro/£ list when I've been searching for drives. Usually Crucial seems to take to top stop and I've yet to see a reason buy anything else.

    Like now as I write I see 480GB BX200 being available for 97€ taxes included in amazon.de, cheapest 500GB EVO is 141€, so straight away +45% or something like that. I've yet to see it ever being even remotely competitive with sandisks or corsairs in Europe.

    It still seems to sell well though being often in the top lists of many retailers.
  • DeepLake - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    Last i checked US prices for Samsung EVO were also very high. I dont know what other commenters are talking about. Are they ignorant or Samsung agents?
  • BrokenCrayons - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the review. It's good to see SSD prices falling thanks to TLC and a standardized, inexpensive controller. I've been happy with the added capacity at a lower price point thanks to TLC flash. TLC performance behind budget controllers seems good enough now to make MLC SSDs a poor choice in a lot of desktop and laptop usage scenarios.
  • haukionkannel - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    So true. They Are slover, but the prises are good.
  • hansmuff - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    They make excellent game drives. With games coming in at 50GB at times, a 480 or 960GB TLC drive with so-so speeds is perfectly acceptable.
  • bug77 - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    I would love to see the SSD price fall fir any reason but planar TLC :(
    The performance of planar TLC is not that big of an issue, but the reduced lifetime is.
  • LostWander - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    Is the reduced lifetime really that extreme? As far as I've seen it's still far better than anything you would get out of a conventional HDD. Adding in better general performance and it seems like less intensive applications (like a game or media storage drive) would still be perfectly acceptable for TLC
  • bug77 - Friday, April 15, 2016 - link

    You get 3 years warranty at most (two years less than MLC/V-NAND TLC) and something like 1000 p/e cycles. Good enough for many things (music, videos), but not if you're writing a lot (e.g. a system drive or a game drive).
    And while TLC itself is not so bad (it's hardly worth it imho, because it's not much cheaper), if the trend continues we'll have some pretty crappy drives in our hands soon.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now