The ADATA XPG SX950 480GB SSD Review: In Search of Premium
by Billy Tallis on October 9, 2017 8:00 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
The overall performance of the ADATA XPG SX950 on the mixed random I/O test is just a bit average, and about 20% slower than Samsung's SATA drives.
The power efficiency of the SX950 looks a bit better, but the Samsung 850 EVO managed to tie for first place on performance wile holding a substantial lead on power efficiency. The SX950 does hold a slight efficiency advantage over the Samsung 850 PRO on this test.
 |
|||||||||
The SX950's power consumption is very flat across the varying workloads of this test, while the performance improves steadily as the share of writes grows. The top-performing Samsung drives start out about 40MB/s faster than the SX950 and most drives show a more significant performance spike when they reach the all-writes phase of the test.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
The mixed sequential I/O performance of the ADATA XPG SX950 is sub-par, though there are actually three planar MLC SSDs that are even slower. The Crucial BX300 is about 14% faster overall.
The SX950's efficiency is tied with the Crucial BX300, and both are near the top of the chart. The DRAMless OCZ VX500 is far more efficient that the rest of these drives, and without it the SX950's efficiency score would look very good.
 |
|||||||||
During the first half of this test as the proportion of writes grows, the SX950's performance increases and the power consumption drops. During the second half, the improvement falters but neither performance nor power consumption regress significantly. The Crucial BX300 is faster across the board, especially during the read-heavy parts of the test, but it requires significantly more power to deliver that higher read performance.
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 !