Random Read/Write Speed

The four corners of SSD performance are as follows: random read, random write, sequential read and sequential write speed. Random accesses are generally small in size, while sequential accesses tend to be larger and thus we have the four Iometer tests we use in all of our reviews.

Our first test writes 4KB in a completely random pattern over an 8GB space of the drive to simulate the sort of random access that you'd see on an OS drive (even this is more stressful than a normal desktop user would see). I perform three concurrent IOs and run the test for 3 minutes. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire time. We use both standard pseudo randomly generated data for each write as well as fully random data to show you both the maximum and minimum performance offered by SandForce based drives in these tests. The average performance of SF drives will likely be somewhere in between the two values for each drive you see in the graphs. For an understanding of why this matters, read our original SandForce article.

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Read

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write

Desktop Iometer - 4KB Random Write (QD=32)

The SSD 730 isn't the fastest in peak performance because that's irrelevant in the enterprise space. We are still looking at decent random write performance and the random read performance is actually surprisingly good.

Sequential Read/Write Speed

To measure sequential performance I ran a 1 minute long 128KB sequential test over the entire span of the drive at a queue depth of 1. The results reported are in average MB/s over the entire test length.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Read

The same goes for sequential performance: the 730 is an average performer with focus on consistency.

Desktop Iometer - 128KB Sequential Write

AS-SSD Incompressible Sequential Read/Write Performance

The AS-SSD sequential benchmark uses incompressible data for all of its transfers. The result is a pretty big reduction in sequential write speed on SandForce based controllers.

Incompressible Sequential Read Performance

Incompressible Sequential Write Performance

AnandTech Storage Bench 2013 Performance vs. Transfer Size
Comments Locked

96 Comments

View All Comments

  • gevorg - Thursday, February 27, 2014 - link

    Whats up with the satanic skull? LOL!
  • DanNeely - Thursday, February 27, 2014 - link

    The tacky gamer bling is intended to convince corporate purchasing to buy the more expensive S3500 instead.
  • littlebitstrouds - Thursday, February 27, 2014 - link

    Well aren't you mean today. Just because it doesn't fit your style, doesn't mean you need to be a jerk about it.
  • Homeles - Friday, February 28, 2014 - link

    I thought it was funny!
  • alyarb - Friday, February 28, 2014 - link

    and insightful! it's not like you saw skulltrail boards in 2P workstations either. you have to pay extra to get the plain green board.
  • ddriver - Friday, February 28, 2014 - link

    This hard drive is poisonous.
  • tabascosauz - Saturday, March 1, 2014 - link

    It's probably like the skull on Intel's motherboards; just a logo that's been there for so long that it's become an icon of Intel in the consumer market. I still like the old peel-up-for-silicon Intel design on my SSD 530 though, but not that it matters since there's only one case that showcases SSDs (H440).
  • Anonymous Blowhard - Friday, February 28, 2014 - link

    sarchasm (sar-kaz-im)
    1. the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it
  • DanNeely - Friday, February 28, 2014 - link

    I intended describing it as 'tacky gamer bling' as being charitable. If I felt like being mean I'd've used something like 'eye searingly hideous' instead.
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, March 6, 2014 - link

    It's really idiotic.

    Intel looks like a foolish old man trying to be cool with that.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now