The ADATA XPG SX950 480GB SSD Review: In Search of Premium
by Billy Tallis on October 9, 2017 8:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy
Our Heavy storage benchmark is proportionally more write-heavy than The Destroyer, but much shorter overall. The total writes in the Heavy test aren't enough to fill the drive, so performance never drops down to steady state. This test is far more representative of a power user's day to day usage, and is heavily influenced by the drive's peak performance. The Heavy workload test details can be found here. This test is run twice, once on a freshly erased drive and once after filling the drive with sequential writes.
When the Heavy test is run on a fresh drive, the ADATA XPG SX950 delivers a good average data rate that is a bit higher than the Crucial BX300 and close to the level of Samsung's SATA SSDs. But when the drive is full, the SX950 suffers greatly in the manner of the SU800 and the Crucial MX300, while the BX300 is minimally affected.
Both the average and 99th percentile latencies highlight how poorly the SX950 performs when the Heavy test is run on a full drive, but the latency when the test is run on a fresh drive is normal.
The average read and write latencies of the SX950 are both significantly higher when the Heavy test is run on a full drive, but the write latency is again far more strongly affected. For both reads and writes, the full-drive performance is better than the TLC-based ADATA SU800, but nowhere close to the standard set by the Crucial BX300.
The MLC-based SSDs almost all show very little degradation in 99th percentile read and write latencies when the drive is full. The exceptions are the ADATA SX950 and the DRAMless OCZ VX500. The 99th percentile read latency of the SX950 is higher when the drive is full, but still better than the planar TLC drives. The 99th percentile write latency on the other hand grows by more than an order of magnitude to almost 95ms.
The ADATA SX950 scores very well on energy usage when the Heavy test is run on an empty drive: it matches the DRAMless OCZ VX500 and comes close to the Crucial MX300, which uses a Marvell controller fabbed on a newer and lower-power process. The Crucial BX300 uses 14% more energy largely due to taking longer overall to complete the test. The situation is reversed when running the test on a full drive: the ADATA SX950 takes much longer to complete the test and is doing a lot of costly background garbage collection, though it still at least beats the planar TLC SSDs and ADATA's own TLC-based SU800.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Lord of the Bored - Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - link
Nanu-nanu, as you centaurians say.BrokenCrayons - Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - link
*beep-borp* I am an alien. I am superior. *borp-borp-beep*svan1971 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
I stopped reading after I don't identify as human. To much self loathing from a no doubt educated idiot.svan1971 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
LMAO Perfect...Samus - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
Even if the SU950 was cheaper than the BX300, I'd still rather have the BX300. I've never had to send a drive in to Crucial for warranty. Ever. Intel and Crucial have a 0% defect rate in my workplaces.Samsung had a number of 840 EVO's go sour years ago that resulted in a number of drive being sent in and replaced with new drives with new firmwares. In 2014 an 840 Pro even went bad, although I realize that is quite an anomaly for Samsung. The 840 EVO's were well documented to have issues.
I've seen a number of ADATA SP500's fail, they just drop and stop detecting at POST. Before Barefoot 3, OCZ drives had all the typical issues Sandforce drives were notorious for having until the SF-2281 launched and firmware matured. Recent OCZ drives, even the ARC100 (the cheapest Barefoot drive) is reasonably reliable. One was mailed in a few months ago for warranty due to Windows detecting SMART errors. The drive didn't fail, and data was cloned to an advance replacement OCZ mailed out next-day. The OCZ warranty process was excellent, but that doesn't help a drive began to fail.
Two Mushkin Reactors suffered the same issue seemingly years apart, they would randomly not detect, give a BSOD, and so on. The data was cloned to replacement SSD's and the Mushkin drives were RMA'd (which was a complete pain in the ass compared to OCZ with a 2 week turnaround no less) and the drives were fleabayed.
Granted, even Intel isn't immune to problems. Fortunately I have no SSD535's out in the field. These drives are notorious for self destructing from write amplification wear, and even though a firmware was issues to fix it recently, most of those drives have already killed themselves, and if you have an OEM model like a Lenovo, you can't apply the firmware (and Lenovo - reflecting their typical "quality" support - hasn't issued a firmware update even a year after Intel made it available.)
Overall, my point is, why would anybody buy a drive from someone other than Intel, Micron/Crucial, or Samsung? It's just a ridiculous gamble and is unlikely to save you money. There are niche drives like the Reactor that is still the cheapest 1TB SSD, so there are exceptions, but what exactly is ADATA bringing to the table that Samsung isn't with the 750, Crucial isn't with the BX300, and Intel isn't with the 600p?
ddriver - Monday, October 9, 2017 - link
You poor peasants and your precious money. One's social standing is measured by how much one has spent on hardware, not the actual value of the purchase, and of course, how much RGB LEDs it has.Silly ADATA, still haven't figured out how to justify the higher cost of ownership due to the lack of vertical integration. 9 letters - RGB LED FTW. Why is the industry sleeping, we have RGB LEDs on mobos, coolers, ram, mice, keyboards, but not on SSD? Or maybe they are saving that for the next quantum leap in technology that's gonna leave people dazzled.
What intel brings with the 600p is hard to topple, it sure ain't easy to make an NVME drive that lousy. I also like how certain fairly expressive enterprise intel ssd drives behave when they run out of write cycles. While other vendors drives remain read-only, giving you the possibility to retrieve or use the existing data at your leisure, intel had the ingenious idea that such drives should brick themselves on the next post cycle. Such a great and highly useful feature. Who wouldn't want that?
Reflex - Tuesday, October 10, 2017 - link
@samus You poor peasant! You poor poor peasant!Golgatha777 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
Anecdotal evidence to support your last paragraph. I have probably 20 or so Intel, Crucial, and Samsung drives (75%+ being Crucial drives) spread around laptops, desktops, and even a couple of game consoles. Not one failure in the bunch. I did have to flash one of my M500 drives due to a post error, but the issue was well documented and a fix was issued within a month of it being reported by Crucial. I do own a couple of Sandisk drives, but I did my research and they use Marvell controllers and Micron RAM, so I felt like those weren't a gamble.Golgatha777 - Wednesday, October 11, 2017 - link
That should be Sandisk RAM for the Sandisk drives (Ultra IIs), not Micron.leexgx - Monday, October 16, 2017 - link
but this is a MLC drive so probably outlast most other drives