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 128-KB block size.
The SX8200 Pro 1 TB's read speeds aren't markedly different from the SX8200 500 GB's, but the writes show tremendous improvement. The Pro doubles the write rates of our older SX8200 review unit. Of course, some of that improvement is simply due to the capacity difference, but nonetheless we're impressed. Still, Samsung's 970 EVO 1 TB enjoys a commanding lead in the sequential write tests. TurboWrite seems to remain the gold standard for pseudo-SLC caching speed. Let's have a look at random rates.
Adata's claims of random-rate gains do not manifest at QD1, but the Pro ekes out some minor wins over the SX8200 in our QD4 tests.
Our initial IOMeter tests seem to corroborate Adata's story of how much better the SX8200 Pro is versus its predecessor. But we've got a lot more tests to pit against the newcomer.