AnandTech Storage Bench 2013

Our Storage Bench 2013 focuses on worst-case multitasking and IO consistency. Similar to our earlier Storage Benches, the test is still application trace based – we record all IO requests made to a test system and play them back on the drive we are testing and run statistical analysis on the drive's responses. There are 49.8 million IO operations in total with 1583.0GB of reads and 875.6GB of writes. I'm not including the full description of the test for better readability, so make sure to read our Storage Bench 2013 introduction for the full details.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer
Workload Description Applications Used
Photo Sync/Editing Import images, edit, export Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe Lightroom 4, Dropbox
Gaming Download/install games, play games Steam, Deus Ex, Skyrim, Starcraft 2, BioShock Infinite
Virtualization Run/manage VM, use general apps inside VM VirtualBox
General Productivity Browse the web, manage local email, copy files, encrypt/decrypt files, backup system, download content, virus/malware scan Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware
Video Playback Copy and watch movies Windows 8
Application Development Compile projects, check out code, download code samples Visual Studio 2012

We are reporting two primary metrics with the Destroyer: average data rate in MB/s and average service time in microseconds. The former gives you an idea of the throughput of the drive during the time that it was running the test workload. This can be a very good indication of overall performance. What average data rate doesn't do a good job of is taking into account response time of very bursty (read: high queue depth) IO. By reporting average service time we heavily weigh latency for queued IOs. You'll note that this is a metric we have been reporting in our enterprise benchmarks for a while now. With the client tests maturing, the time was right for a little convergence.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

The good IO consistency translates into good performance in our 2013 Storage Bench. The ARC 100 is without a doubt the fastest value drive in the market for heavy IO workloads as the 840 EVO and MX100 do not even come close.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Service Time)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench 2011
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    So when Intel had its 8MB bricked-SSD problem, why weren't they villified by everyone and
    hence all trust lost?

    The concept of trust for a technical product is bizarre. Either it works within a set range of
    specs & requirements, or it doesn't. OCZ makes a bunch of models that work very well
    indeed (Vertex4, Vector, etc.), yet people act and post comments as if that's not true,
    which is just dumb IMO.

  • hojnikb - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    Not to mention all the issues sandforce based drives had.
  • LB-ID - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    (checks the manufacturer)
    Yup, still OCZ. If I want to be a beta-tester for an unreliable and unscrupulous company, I'd go volunteer to be a guinea pig for someone contracting for the NSA. No thank you, never again.

    Caveat emptor.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    QED, more pointless FUD.

  • jsntech - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - link

    There are probably 'good' reasons for it, but I really chuckle every time I think about Toshiba buying a brand name with a history of unreliable products and bad customer support, and then rebranding brand new tech with that tainted name.

    For the love of pete, why why why?

    Oh well. Best of luck to Toshiba, but I personally will never again buy anything on earth with 'OCZ' in the name.
  • kyuu - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    This logic is silly. You explicitly acknowledge that it is merely the same label on what is largely a different company, but you refuse to buy anything with the label because... reasons?

    Granted, it was a poor choice by Toshiba to keep the OCZ branding, but I wager Toshiba management was unaware of how that brand was perceived when the decision was made. They probably thought they were appealing to an existing consumer-base who were loyal to the OCZ name or something.

    But still, refusing to judge the product by its own merits (of which it seems to have a great deal, as long as you're not looking to use it in a laptop) but instead by the (now largely meaningless) label? Just seems silly to me.
  • melgross - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    If Toshiba was unaware of the problems with OCZ's realizability and bad reputation, then Toshiba is incompetent. There is no way that a company would buy one that going bankrupt without doing the due diligence first. If they did, they would have seen all the problems. So what you are saying is no excuse.

    But then, toshiba's reputation for SSD's isn't that great to begin with, so maybe they don't care.
  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    And exactly what reliability/reputation issues are you referring to? Because they apply
    to the later products at all, hence all this sort of posting does is perpetuate what is now
    a thoroughly out of date attitude. Hardly surprising OCZ went bust when self-sustaining
    FUD posting keeps putting people buying what are actually really good products. I'd
    happily buy more Vertex4s if they were still available at a sensible price. The only thing
    that puts me off certain models much of the time, from any manufacturer, is price. In the
    past 2 years, prices fluctuated wildly in a manner that left the Vector series costing far
    too much vs. the competition, which is a shame given the good quality of the product.

    What blows my mind is the way people who moan on and on about quality, reliability,
    etc., are the same zoids who are so quick to recommend today's budget models like
    the MX100 to someone for whom reliability is a priority - total contradiction.

  • mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    (typo in 1st sentence, I meant to write, "...they don't apply to the later products at all, ..."
    Still unable to edit posts on this site??)
  • seapeople - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    If you've been burned by a Ford Pinto before, then it makes sense that you wouldn't want to buy a new Pinto, even if they tell you it's a complete redesign. Whether it makes sense or not, that's why Ford was smart enough to get rid of the Pinto name...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now