IOMeter — Sequential and random performance
IOMeter fuels much of our latest storage test suite, including our sequential and random I/O tests. These tests are run across the full capacity of the drive at two queue depths. The QD1 tests simulate a single thread, while the QD4 results emulate a more demanding desktop workload. For perspective, 87% of the requests in our old DriveBench 2.0 trace of real-world desktop activity have a queue depth of four or less. Clicking the buttons below the graphs switches between results charted at the different queue depths.
Our sequential tests use a relatively large 128KB block size.
The Hellfire's sequential speeds are good enough to keep it ahead of the SATA herd, but they aren't particularly fast for a PCIe drive. The RD400 looks about 50% faster in most of these tests.
The drive's random response times are a mixed bag. Read times are definitely on the slow side, beaten by various older, slower drives. But the Hellfire's write times are blazingly quick, landing close to the top of the charts.
So far, the Hellfire seems all right. Not mindblowing, but all right. Perhaps more complex testing will expose more noteworthy strengths or weaknesses. Let's move on.
|Asus Crosshair VI Extreme pulls out all the stops for AM4||1|
|Doom 6.66 update brings free DLC and a multi-platform free weekend||16|
|Intel graphics driver 15.46 fixes a slew of games||22|
|Fujitsu joins the deep-learning stampede with specialized silicon||6|
|Arctic Cooling Liquid Freezer AIOs stand ready for Threadripper||8|
|Intel price list reveals Core i9-7920X cache size and base clock||87|
|ASML demonstrates production-ready EUV tool throughput||26|
|Caviar Day Shortbread||11|
|Everybody was a winner at the TR BBQ XIV||23|
|Impressive, most impressive.||+46|