The ADATA XPG SX950 480GB SSD Review: In Search of Premium
by Billy Tallis on October 9, 2017 8:00 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
For short bursts of sequential reads at QD1, the ADATA XPG SX950 comes reasonably close to saturating the SATA bus and is not significantly outperformed by any other SATA drive.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
On the longer sequential read test, the SX950's performance drops dramatically, leaving it as one of the slowest SSDs in this bunch.
With such poor sustained read performance, the SX950's efficiency is quite low, though all the other drives with Intel/Micron 32L 3D NAND also rank at the bottom of this chart with the SX950 even when they deliver higher performance.
 |
|||||||||
Sustained sequential read speeds on the ADATA SX950 do not increase with higher queue depths. The burst test showed that higher speeds are possible in favorable conditions, but giving the SSD more work to do when it is already bottlenecked internally doesn't help things.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
The burst sequential write speed of the SX950 is about average, and virtually identical to its TLC-based SU800 sibling; this test is primarily hitting the SLC caches so it's unsurprising to see the two perform the same.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
The sustained sequential write speeds of the SX950 fall short of the top SATA drives and are instead slightly lower than the Crucial BX300, but since this test doesn't fill the drive the SX950's write performance doesn't end up falling through the floor.
The SX950's power efficiency during the sustained sequential write test is pretty good, though the Crucial MX300 and OCZ VX500 still manage to beat it. The SX950 has about a 20% advantage over the BX300, which is the next most efficient drive using 3D MLC.
 |
|||||||||
The SX950 doesn't reach full sequential write performance until QD4, and its saturation speed is slightly slower than drives like the Samsung 850 PRO (which is very nearly at full speed by QD2). Performance and power consumption remain steady through the second half of the test as the drive still has plenty of SLC cache remaining.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
menthol1979 - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Oh dear God, another SSD that has absolutely no reason of existence. Really bored to see another SSD that gets pwned by 850 EVO (leave the PRO). I wonder if manufacturers actually test and benchmark their products before driving them to market.Stochastic - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Agreed.ddriver - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Sadly, very little of what humans do is because it is necessary or it makes sense.Reflex - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
@ddriver And yet you continue posting...Samus - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
lolzddriver - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Moot point, as I don't identify with the human herd. Cattle mentality and the accompanying irrational behavioral patterns don't sit well with me. Which is also why I refer to humans in third person, a subtle nuance an intelligent person would have read into.But not you though, you perfectly fit the profile, seeing how once again you fail at getting stuff or making sense ;) But still, an understandable effort, you are probably still hurting by that chain of pwnage. And it's only parroting cliches because you really cannot do better.
You humans, sometimes I am amazed you made it this far. And since you wouldn't get the nuance, there are two contexts to that, the first being that you still haven't succumb to your stupidity, and the second being "this far into devolution". I suppose that's why you cherish the establishment and its mediocrity so much, even if it is what pushes you to regress into cattle, you still get to survive, suckling at its toxic tit. It's your mommy, that's what your infant mind can identify it as, not as what it really is.
ddriver - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
And just in case you are perplexed how me responding to your post is something that makes sense, since you obviously can't get all this, it is quite simple - you are not the intended audience, just the means of making a point for the occasional few that can get it ;)vgray35@hotmail.com - Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - link
This quote "Sadly, very little of what humans do is because it is necessary or it makes sense," is a telling feature reveal of this AI Cyborg miscreant, who apparently has a deep rooted need for focusing on humans, describing humans, engaging humans, belittling humans; and it's apparent its existence and glorified self aggrandizement is defined solely on the existence lowly humans, as evidenced by the closing statement "you are not the intended audience ...".Sadly, very little of what this AI cyborg does makes sense. Prattle over product reviews is merely pretense of know how . Sadly no one has yet found the power down switch for this AI cyborg. For as much as it exudes disdain for humans, yet its very reason for being relies entirely on the necessity for engaging with them, to establish meaning in its miserable existence. These posts are its food, and a belittlement posture its means of self aggrandizement compensating for its low class software programming. The prattle is evidence that surely this really is no human (as it itself claims). It needs a firmware upgrade and an implant to put it out of its misery. I wish scientists would stop creating such experimental specimens for their own misguided research.
mapesdhs - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
vgray, that was awesome. 8)svan1971 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Bravo !