AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer is an extremely long test replicating the access patterns of very IO-intensive desktop usage. A detailed breakdown can be found in this article. Like real-world usage, 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. These AnandTech Storage Bench (ATSB) tests do not involve running the actual applications that generated the workloads, so the scores are relatively insensitive to changes in CPU performance and RAM from our new testbed, but the jump to a newer version of Windows and the newer storage drivers can have an impact.

We quantify performance on this test by reporting the drive's average data throughput, the average latency of the I/O operations, and the total energy used by the drive over the course of the test.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Crucial MX500 500GB delivers a slightly slower average data rate on The Destroyer than the Intel 545s or the Crucial BX300, but it is still substantially faster than previous MX series drives. The MLC drives are on top, but the Samsung 860 PRO's lead is less than 15%. This time last year, the top MLC drive held a 46% advantage over Crucial's TLC-based MX300.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latency scores of the Crucial MX500 500GB are good but still lag behind the MLC based drives and the Intel 545s. The MX500's average latency is essentially tied with the Samsung 850 EVO, and its 99th percentile latency is clearly better.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (Average Write Latency)

The average read and write latency scores for the Crucial MX500 are both slower than the Intel 545s, but are at least as fast as any other TLC based drive, including the Samsung 850 EVO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - The Destroyer (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The 99th percentile read latency of the MX500 is much better than the MX300, but the 99th percentile write latency score has barely improved. In both cases, that leaves the MX500 trailing the Intel 545s but ahead of the Samsung 850 EVO.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The power consumption of the Crucial MX500 on The Destroyer is slightly higher than the MX300, and is clearly worse than the Intel 545s or the Crucial BX300. The regression relative to the MX300 isn't serious enough to worry mobile users, but it probably means the MX500 will end up being the least power-efficient mainstream SATA SSD of its generation, once we've tested the 860 EVO.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • jordanclock - Friday, February 2, 2018 - link

    Generally, any good SATA SSD is going offer much the same performance as any other model. The gains when going from the second (or even fifth) best SSD on SATA to the absolute best are tiny. Plus, given the capacity you would want for a console, I think going for a 'mediocre' SSD will offer all the performance you need without spending twice as much for less than one second load time differences. Reply
  • leexgx - Tuesday, February 20, 2018 - link

    this is true once you have a SSD (any) in a console your purely limited by the CPU speed and ram in the PS4 or xbox it self (some youtubers have tested it) even to the point the SSHD from seagate and toshiba after the second load is nearly the same as a SSD (but it has to have read the data before so if you load the same game or save twice for it work well witch mite happen if you die a lot and fall back to a checkpoint save) if you switch between games SSHDs can at times offer not as much benerfit

    still can't beat SSDs for consistency as it always be the same speed
  • tamalero - Friday, February 2, 2018 - link

    Those prices feel really nice! Reply
  • Hurr Durr - Sunday, February 4, 2018 - link

    It's not nice until we hit around 10 cents for the gigabyte. Reply
  • zirk65 - Friday, February 2, 2018 - link

    Looks similar to the MX200, but with bigger pipes and better thermals.

    MX200 = MLC NAND / Marvel Controller
    MX500 = TLC NAND / Silicon Motion Controller

    Yet I wonder much is different between the controller uArch these days, outside of specific I/O and power functions.
  • mode_13h - Friday, February 2, 2018 - link

    Last I checked, Crucial's MX-series SSDs featured end-to-end data protection. Does Samsung offer anything like that, in their consumer drives? Reply
  • letmepicyou - Friday, February 2, 2018 - link

    Say Mr. Tallis, I'm sure I'm not alone when I ask this (feel free to chime in, guys) but there are those of us out here who want the greater capacity of a 1tb drive whilst not wanting to fork over 1tb drive prices. I can RAID 0 a pair of ~500gb drives and get better performance than a single 1tb drive, while spending $60-$120 less.
    What I'm saying is, I would love to see how your arsenal of ~500 gb drives perform in RAID. I have a feeling others would like to see the same information.
  • Billy Tallis - Friday, February 2, 2018 - link

    You can't get a pair of 500GB drives for $60 less than the price of a 1TB drive from the same product line, unless you're looking at an unusually good sale on the 500GB drives and not looking for the best price on a 1TB drive. Every 1TB SATA drive I price checked this week was cheaper per GB than its half-TB counterpart.

    As for RAID testing, my collection of drives almost never includes more than one of each. At the moment I'm finishing up a NVMe RAID review using a set of drives that was loaned by a vendor specifically for this review. Between the disappointing results I'm getting from that project and the prices I'm seeing that don't make SATA RAID economical either, it's not a priority for me to test SATA RAID.
  • Wardrop - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link

    Is that a software raid or hardware raid you used for your NVMe raid review. I'm guessing software as I'm not even sure any NVMe raid solutions exist. In that case, I imagine we're back to needing dedicated RAID controller to deal with the order of magnitude increase in drive performance compared to HDD's, and then obviously you're left questioning who needs double the increase in sequential performance when a single drive is usually more than fast enough for any sequential workload. Reply
  • peevee - Monday, February 5, 2018 - link

    Check m.2 PCIe/NVMe 1TB and 2TB prices.
    But you'll need an MB with 2 M.2 slots with 4x PCIe connected to CPU, are those even available? Otherwise latencies will dominate the performance (like for M.2 which only provide SATA, either slots or drives).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now