The Destroyer chart with SSDs?

[Juventas]

I consider The Destroyer 2013 as the best benchmark out there for SSDs.

In each review, there's a handful of other SSDs for comparison, but only a small amount of them. Is there a chart that has every drive ever benchmarked with The Destroyer 2013 on it?

 

[Hulk]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/730

 

[Juventas]

Nice!

I like how the controller and memory is listed with each one. Although I don't think the P3700 belongs--its target market is data centers.

 

[Juventas]

It'd be nice if they ran a modern HDD through The Destroyer as well. A Caviar Black perhaps.

 

[VirtualLarry]

It'd be nice if they ran a modern HDD through The Destroyer as well. A Caviar Black perhaps.

I don't think that they want to wait a month for the test to finish.

 

[Data-Medics]

If the test is 4K random reads (as I suspect), then a HDD won't even move the line on the chart.

 

[Berryracer]

If my 4K performance was that bad I wouldn't even sleep. That's the most important metric IMO and defines what system/OS/programs snappiness is all about.

Sequential speeds are only for marketing to show what's the max that an SSD could perform but that's only when copying large / huge files and won't matter to the average or even power user ins his daily workflow.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Nice!

I like how the controller and memory is listed with each one. Although I don't think the P3700 belongs--its target market is data centers.

So? Stuff like silly "target markets" never stops Real Computer Enthusiasts™ and the PC Master Race™ from incorporating enterprise- or server-grade components into their builds where appropriate.

If a server-grade SSD benchmarks even 1% faster than the fastest consumer SSD, rest assured that somebody, somewhere, is using it to play Crysis.

 

[coercitiv]

I consider The Destroyer 2013 as the best benchmark out there for SSDs.

The is no "best" benchmark, simply because all these simulated workloads need to be close to the user usage pattern in order to be relevant. For example, in my case, although it's nice to see my SSD performing well in the Destroyer benchmark, it's far more relevant for me to see it score high in the Light and Heavy workloads, because that's where my usage pattern lies.

If anything, The Destroyer is a worst case scenario benchmark: it stresses the hardware and shows any weakness that might be hidden during normal loads. If your workloads resemble more the ones in the Light or Heavy bechmark, you might be surprised to find out that the faster SSD in the Destroyer benchmark may not necessarily be the faster SSD for you.

 

[Hulk]

I am patiently waiting for the Storage Bench to be updated with Crucial BX100 results data.

 

[Z15CAM]

Yes! Crucial BX100 Vs Samsung 850 Pro comparison would be interesting. Both are TLC Nand with different Controllers.

 

[Hulk]

Yes! Crucial BX100 Vs Samsung 850 Pro comparison would be interesting. Both are TLC Nand with different Controllers.

BX100 is MLC NAND.

 

[SSBrain]

BX100 is MLC NAND.

According to its SMART parameters however, it looks like it's got NAND memory rated for 2000 P/E cycles. See:

http://media.www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Sources/C/Crucial BX100 1TB SSD/Tests/Snap15.jpg

"168 - Max Erase Count of Spec"

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes! Crucial BX100 Vs Samsung 850 Pro comparison would be interesting. Both are TLC Nand with different Controllers.

850 PRO = MLC
850 EVO = TLC

http://techreport.com/review/27464/samsung-850-evo-solid-state-drive-reviewed
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8216/samsung-ssd-850-pro-128gb-256gb-1tb-review-enter-the-3d-era

 

[Hulk]

According to its SMART parameters however, it looks like it's got NAND memory rated for 2000 P/E cycles. See:

http://media.www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Sources/C/Crucial BX100 1TB SSD/Tests/Snap15.jpg

"168 - Max Erase Count of Spec"

Nevertheless it's MLC NAND.