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. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Heavy (Data Rate)

The WD Black SN750 provides only minor overall improvements over last year's model on the Heavy test. This leaves it with an average data rate that falls well short of the latest Silicon Motion-based drives when the test is run on an empty drive, but the full-drive performance of the WD Black is still excellent.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Latency)

The average and 99th percentile latencies from the new WD Black are not significantly different from last year's model. The Corsair MP510 provides slightly better latency scores using the same flash, and the Silicon Motion SM2262EN-based drives are even faster when the test is run on an empty drive.

ATSB - Heavy (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (Average Write Latency)

The average read and write latencies from the WD Black SN750 are a tiny bit better than the previous generation, but not enough to change the rankings significantly. The SN750 has one of the best average read latency scores for a full-drive test run, and its empty-drive read latency score comes closer to the best drives than either of its average write latency scores.

ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Heavy (99th Percentile Write Latency)

The WD Black SN750 and its predecessor show very little full-drive penalty to 99th percentile read or write latencies, and consequently they have some of the best full-drive QoS scores on the Heavy test. But when the test is run on an empty drive, several other drives score a bit better.

ATSB - Heavy (Power)

The SN750 is slightly more power efficient than its predecessor, bringing it very close to matching the WD Blue SATA SSD for efficiency while delivering almost three times the overall performance.

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

54 Comments

View All Comments

  • nevcairiel - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Whatever happend to the Samsung PRO in those comparisons? If you call something a "top NVMe SSD" and then don't have the PROs in there to stack up against, it feels incomplete.
  • jordanclock - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Where do you see that they call it the top NVMe SSD?

    Comparing it to the 970PRO doesn't make a lot of sense since they are in vastly different price ranges and market segment. The 970 EVO is perfect because they are very close in price and market segment. They even admit in the conclusion that the "970 EVO may be the slightly better performer overall."
  • Drakkhen - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    He didn't call it the top NVMe SSD, he said a "top NVMe SSD".

    But, I agree that it isn't really relevant since this comparison is for a different price point/market.
  • DanNeely - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    I would like to see at at least on higher end drive that's not an Optane for comparison though.
  • romrunning - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Agreed
  • philehidiot - Saturday, January 19, 2019 - link

    I think it's always useful, regardless of where you are in the meerkat, to compare to the top and the bottom of the range. This gives you an idea of what you're getting. Am I getting 70% of top end performance for 70% of the price or am I getting 95% of it for 70% of the price? Those are two very different value propositions and certainly things we see often in the PC meerkat. Sometimes the progression with price is linear(ish) and sometimes you can spend double the cash to get the very best but really all you're seeing is a few percent extra performance because it takes that much extra R&D / materials investment to get there.
  • 29a - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    In the second paragraph on the last page.

    "the new WD Black is still a very competitive high-end NVMe SSD"

    They do make the claim that it is a high end SSE which I would equate to being "a top NVMe SSD" and should be compared to the Samsung Pro models.
  • althaz - Friday, January 18, 2019 - link

    Depends where you are I guess. The 500Gb WD Black is exactly the same price as the 512Gb Samsung 970 Pro where I live. Samsung's 970 EVO drives are $100/TB cheaper.
  • Samus - Monday, January 21, 2019 - link

    LOL, the 500GB WD Black is consistently close to half the price of the 980 Pro, and the 970 Pro is essentially the same performance as the EVO (hence them being similarly priced.)

    I agree, the 980 Pro should be in the benchmarks, but certainly not the 970 Pro. Just use the EVO as a baseline and add 3% if you want to be picky about exact figures.
  • Samus - Monday, January 21, 2019 - link

    I forgot to add, or rather point out, the 970 EVO and 970 PRO share the same controller and are otherwise identical configurations with the exception of the PRO being MLC.

    That said, Samsung actually rates them near-identically in performance and aside from the SLC caching algorithm, the EVO performs the same.

    The only real reason to get the PRO is if you need the DWPD\endurance of MLC. That's literally the only advantage the PRO has.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now