AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer

The Destroyer has been an essential part of our SSD test suite for nearly two years now. It was crafted to provide a benchmark for very IO intensive workloads, which is where you most often notice the difference between drives. It's not necessarily the most relevant test to an average user, but for anyone with a heavier IO workload The Destroyer should do a good job at characterizing performance. For full details of this test, please refer to this article.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The Trion is evidently not designed for intensive IO workloads like our The Destroyer and that's clear in the results. It's quite a bit slower than any of the other drives we have tested, including the TLC based Silicon Motion SM2256.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

Fortunately the share of high latency IOs is tolerable and despite the high average latency the Trion at least doesn't completely stop processing host IOs. 

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Latency)

It looks like the Trion is doing a lot of background garbage collection because despite the low performance, the power consumption is very high. For desktop users that's a non-issue, but for mobile the Trion may not be the best pick.

AnandTech Storage Bench - The Destroyer (Power)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • Samus - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    That isn't neccessarily true. Barefoot 3 firmware has been excellent from the beginning. Performance is good and reliability in my experience has been excellent.

    As far as OCZ drives go (this Toshiba drive included) Barefoot 3 drives are the only models to consider. We all know about OCZ's Sandforce firmware reliability and the Indilinx Everest has worse performance than the Marvell-based equivalent.

    I still find it hard to consider drives other than Crucial MX100's and even older M500's because they are so reliable and inexpensive.

    I just don't trust Samsung TLC drives, though, although quite hypocritically I am running the 850 EVO M.2 (500GB) in my laptop right now, which replaced a Crucial M550 (256GB) because Crucial's only M.2 single-sided drives in 512GB capacity are the MX200 which leaves a lot to be desired performance and power-wise, compared to the 850 EVO.

    I just hope performance doesn't fall like a rock like the 840 EVO's did.
    Reply
  • theuglyman0war - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    hasn't it been long enough now to discern whether or not the 850 TLC suffers the same problems as the 840's? Was really hoping for a definitive follow up article by now. Or at least a community consensus. ( though I suppose it is rather cowardly to ask " did u guys blow yer money" as a research strategy :) ) Reply
  • IlllI - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    I wonder when toshiba bought them out, if they were aware of the stigma of how awful the ocz line/brand of ssds were, and most people 'in the know' avoided them. Reply
  • Gigaplex - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    The stigma of OCZ isn't the only confusing part. Toshiba built their own in house SSD, why did they need OCZ in the first place? Reply
  • Samus - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    Because toshiba drives are dog slow. They have lost a lot of OEMs because of their performance. Look at the original macbook's that randomly gave customers toshiba or Samsung drives...take a guess which ones were substantially better? OCZ has indilinx which was easily worth what toshiba paid. Reply
  • Gigaplex - Friday, July 10, 2015 - link

    And yet Toshiba opted to rebrand a Toshiba drive as OCZ, rather than the other way around. Reply
  • JellyRoll - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    You know what is REALLY amazing? This has better endurance than the 2TB 850 Pro, which is only .04 DWPD. Part of that is due to its ten-year warranty, BUT if you normalize the warranty periods the 850 PRO (and its 2bit MLC 3D V-NAND) is still not competitive with the 2D planar TLC on the OCZ. Shocking indeed. Reply
  • melgross - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    Don't make the error of confabulating "endurance", which is really no more than a theoretical number, with reliability. Samsung g's drives have, for the most part, proved to be reliable whereas OCz's have not.

    In fact, a problem here is that Toshiba has had their own reliability problems.

    These tests don't tell us anything about that, as Anandtech has been enamoured with OCZ going way back, despite all of their problems. I'm disappointed they're even bothering to talk about OCZ until their reliability in the field is proven after the purchase. Otherwise, it's just more wasted time and energy.
    Reply
  • Samus - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    Samsung drives have proven to be reliable, in that they don't fail, but they have also proven to have what is being covered up as a technological manufacturing defect dating back to the TLC-based 840 EVO that literally destroys the performance of the drive. The chill factor is Samsung A) initially ignored the issue, GM-style B) failed to fix the issue twice over 9 months of firmware updates and C) is now back to ignoring the issue, GM-style.

    At least OCZ published routine firmware updates, honored their warranties, and provided competitive prices.
    Reply
  • kpb321 - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link

    I think the big issue with the 850Pro is that the warranty and rating on the drive is more about targeting a specific market rather than the actual performance of the V-NAND. The drive should be capable of much higher endurance. MLC V-NAND should have a much much higher endurance than TLC as it is trying to store fewer bits per cell and is a step back in lithography size making the cells bigger. Maybe Samsung is using some really low quality V-NAND in the 850 pro but I think it is really about "targeting" the drive at the consumer market rather than the data center. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now