Single page Print

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 960 EVO's sequential read speeds are nothing short of phenomenal. Both capacities break 2000 MB/s at both queue depths, something that not even the 960 Pro achieved. Sequential writes are more of a mixed bag. The 1TB drive puts up a very strong performance at over 1000 MB/s, but the 250GB version only manages to squeeze out about 350 MB/s. That's an acceptable speed, but unremarkable—there are older, cheaper SATA drives like the Arc 100 240GB and Vector 180 240GB that write good deal faster.

Random response times exhibit largely the same pattern. Read times are snappy, just a hair slower than the 960 Pro. Write latencies are blazingly fast for the 1TB, but far more pedestrian for the 250GB.

Thus far, the 960 EVO 1TB shows great promise. It can't catch up to the 960 Pro 2TB's sequential write speeds, but its read speeds are top-notch. The 960 EVO 250GB's reads just as quickly, but its writes are a bit lackluster. But the good news is that across the board, both drives beat out the 850 EVO of the same capacity.