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 XG5 can't quite reach the eye-popping high reads that Samsung's 1TB 3D TLC drive did at QD1, but the gap becomes very narrow at QD4. Sequential write speeds are similar across the XG5, 960 EVO, and RD400. Overall, the XG5's sequential speeds are definitely fast enough to run with the big dogs.
Random read response times fall in the middle of the pack, but nonetheless are much less than a single millisecond. Random write response times are very competitive, approaching the top of the charts.
The XG5 sailed easily through our basic IOMeter synthetics, so let's hit it with some tougher tests.
|Aerocool's Project 7 P7-C1 Pro case reviewed||6|
|Google Project Tango is dead—long live ARCore||4|
|Thermaltake Sync box bridges RGB LED walled gardens||3|
|Intel tips off potential 960 GB and 1.5 TB Optane SSD 900Ps||6|
|Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vegas put a big chill on spicy-hot chips||15|
|Antec P110 Silent touts quiet looks and quiet operation||11|
|Updated LG Gram laptops put heavy-duty power into feathery bodies||15|
|Monkey Day Shortbread||12|
|Thursday deals: a nice Z370 mobo, a huge VA display, and more||6|