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 average data rates from the Kingston A1000 on The Destroyer are only slightly above that of mainstream SATA SSDs. There's also essentially no performance difference between capacities, which isn't too surprising because even the 480GB model has plenty of NAND flash chips to keep all four channels of the controller busy. Performance differences from the MyDigitalSSD SBX are negligible.

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

The average and 99th percentile latency scores from the Kingston A1000 are substantially lower than for SATA drives or other low-end NVMe drives like the Intel 600p and Toshiba RC100. The A1000 also has very slightly lower latency than the MyDigitalSSD SBX. Some of the more expensive PCIe x4 NVMe SSDs offer much better average latency, but for 99th percentile latency the A1000 is just a factor of two or three away from the best flash-based drives.

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

Average read latencies from the A1000 aren't as good as the best NVMe SSDs, but they're still just a fraction of a millisecond and clearly faster than typical SATA drives. Average write latency is much higher than the best NVMe drives but still reasonable for a low-end NVMe drive, with none of the severe write performance problems seen with the Intel 600p and Toshiba RC100.

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

The 99th percentile read and write latencies from the Kingston A1000 are about as good as can be expected from a TLC-based drive; it even manages to slightly beat the Samsung 970 EVO for reads. The larger 960GB A1000 model has a substantially better 99th percentile write latency than the 480GB model.

ATSB - The Destroyer (Power)

The larger 960GB Kingston A1000 uses a bit more energy over the course of The Destroyer than the 480GB model, and both use substantially more energy than the MyDigitalSSD SBX or the Crucial MX500. However, the A1000's power efficiency still compares favorably against the high-end PCIe x4 NVMe SSDs or the low-end NVMe SSDs that perform particularly badly on this long, intense test.

Introduction AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy


View All Comments

  • leexgx - Wednesday, July 4, 2018 - link

    I am fine with no smaller ssds as anything below 240gb is not really enough and cost only 20 more then a 120gb model any way Reply
  • zepi - Monday, January 7, 2019 - link

    Let's return to the old review of the "crappy" product after half a year has elapsed.

    A relative gets a quite nice (for his budget) 6-core intel laptop from Black Friday sales, but it only comes with an HDD.

    I want to get him an SSD that fits the M.2 slot that the machine has. Laptop datasheet leads me to believe that this very specific model number doesn't support SATA over M.2 (many other sub-models list both Sata M.2 and pcie NVMe, but this one particularly mentions only NVMe pcie)

    My limited gift budget allows me to choose 480GB Kingston or 256GB EVO970 from Amazon as I don't have time or possibility to shop around in local stores.

    So for about 90 euros I can choose either faster 256GB or slower 480GB m.2 drive. Choice is clear. In this case bigger is better, even though it is a bit slower. Under most practical day to day use the Kingston is a much better choice as it is quite easy to fill a 250GB SSD, but difficult to max out the iops of A1000 in a way that bothers the user badly.

    EV970 500GB would require about 50% increase in gift budget. Not impossible, but I see very little value from the extra speed, while even the entry level pci-e M.2 SSD is an insane leap for the laptop.

    Corsair P1 500 would also have been an option, but at that particular moment it was more pricey.

    So yeah, even the "worst" of their class SSD's have value to offer.

    I see very little value in faster nvme drives for most people. We've come a long way from the times of Intel X25-M. Even the crappy SSD's are quite good these days.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now