AS SSD Benchmark Results

Website: AS SSD

AS SSD is a freeware benchmarking tool designed just for SSDs, performing a battery of sequential read and write tests, as well as random read and write tests and sequential access tests over a 3GB portion of the drive. As Windows 7's caching technology makes using real world tests such as FC-Test almost impossible, this is the next best test for judging sequential read and write speeds. It also produces accurate access times, and is wonderfully easy to use.

AS SSD's benchmark uses data that is predominantly incompressible, which negates much of SandForce's DuraWrite compression technology. This means that it can be seen as a worst case scenario for drives that use compression, such as the OCZ Vertex 3.

Sequential Performance


AS SSD

Incompressible Data, Sequential Read Speeds

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 120GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 250GB
  • OCZ Vector 256GB
  • Crucial M4 512GB
  • Crucial M4 256GB
  • Crucial M500 480GB
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
    • 962
    • 537
    • 534
    • 521
    • 521
    • 517
    • 516
    • 512
    • 501
    • 497
    • 493
    • 464
0
250
500
750
1000
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Read Speed

AS SSD

Incompressible Data, Sequential Write Speeds

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • OCZ Vector 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • Crucial M500 480GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 120GB
  • Crucial M4 256GB
  • Crucial M4 512GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 250GB
    • 1076
    • 504
    • 498
    • 498
    • 461
    • 448
    • 418
    • 408
    • 389
    • 278
    • 267
    • 249
0
250
500
750
1000
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Write Speed

Random Performance


AS SSD

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Read, Single QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 120GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
  • Crucial M500 480GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 250GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB
  • OCZ Vector 256GB
  • Crucial M4 256GB
  • Crucial M4 512GB
    • 40.94
    • 40.38
    • 39.82
    • 31.33
    • 30.67
    • 27.18
    • 26.66
    • 26.00
    • 24.89
    • 24.75
    • 22.55
    • 22.26
0
10
20
30
40
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Read Speed

AS SSD

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Write, Single QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Crucial M500 480GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 120GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • OCZ Vertex 4 240GB
  • Crucial M4 512GB
  • Crucial M4 256GB
  • OCZ Vector 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 250GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB
    • 254.00
    • 108.07
    • 104.46
    • 103.96
    • 92.24
    • 86.97
    • 81.81
    • 81.34
    • 79.68
    • 65.84
    • 64.91
    • 58.50
0
50
100
150
200
250
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Write Speed

AS SSD

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Read, 64 QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB (Rapid Mode)
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • OCZ Vector 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 120GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Crucial M500 480GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB
  • OCZ Vertex 4 240GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 250GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • Crucial M4 256GB
  • Crucial M4 512GB
    • 458
    • 379
    • 368
    • 346
    • 345
    • 337
    • 330
    • 325
    • 324
    • 288
    • 152
    • 143
0
100
200
300
400
500
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Read Speed

AS SSD

Incompressible Data, 4K Random Write, 64 QD

  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 1TB Rapid Mode
  • OCZ Vector 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 500GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB
  • OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
  • Crucial M500 480GB
  • Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB
  • Crucial M4 512GB
  • Crucial M4 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 250GB
  • SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB
  • Samsung SSD 840 Evo 120GB
    • 879
    • 329
    • 328
    • 327
    • 309
    • 301
    • 286
    • 214
    • 212
    • 207
    • 154
    • 120
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
MB/sec, Higher Is Better
  • Average Random Write Speed

Read our performance analysis.
Discuss this in the forums

Posted by pdjblum - Tue Sep 17 2013 19:04

I have used ssd's for my op sys drive since the first samsung drives were sold on eWiz years ago. Reviewers seem to have become ok with the disparity between the price of ssd's and hard drives like a frog in a pot of slowly heating water. For me at least, using an ssd for storage is still too expensive an option. The other thing that is disturbing is how readily reviewers seem to accept low endurance TLC nand in exchange for marginal reductions in price per gig. TLC nand ssd's should be in price parity with hard drives already. I hope I am not the only poor enthusiast out there who thinks as I do. I just wish reviewers would push the ssd makers to significantly lower the price and not give such high value scores for storage at these prices.

Posted by Corky42 - Tue Sep 17 2013 23:21

I'm not sure SSD's will ever come close to the cost per GB of traditional HDD.
The following article on price trends in the storage market shows that HDDs are back to pre-flood prices, and SSDs grow as $/GB holds steady.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153879-storage-pricewatch-hdds-back-to-pre-flood-prices-ssds-grow-as-gb-holds-steady

[​IMG]

[​IMG]

Posted by Maki role - Wed Sep 18 2013 08:33

Personally I feel that SSDs are steadily reaching the sweet-spot for mainstream adoption. Whilst they may not reach the same price as traditional HDDs for a long time, they certainly have the capability to reach very high adoption rates before then. They offer significant real-world benefits in an office scenario, which is where things could really push manufacturers forward. I've found having an SSD in my work laptop has increased my productivity by a huge margin as opening large PDF files and spreadsheets is now near instantaneous, rather than the 5-15 seconds per document it used to be. This is really handy for naming/labeling purposes, as it not only saves actual time, but it's simply less annoying. It's a lot less painful naming 250 documents when they open really quickly.

Obviously it's too expensive for most businesses to adopt this kind of storage en masse currently, but I don't think they'll need to fall to HDD levels to become competitive.

Once we start getting 500gig drives for say £150, then I believe things will pick up even further. This isn't even taking into account how things like ReRAM could change the sector dramatically in the coming years.
null
YouTube logo
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review

October 14 2021 | 15:04

In line with recent changes to data protection legislation in the UK and Europe we would like to direct you to our updated Privacy Policy here.