It crushes the Z410 and SSD Plus in 4K random write, mixed sequentials, steady-state sequentials, and service times. I don't see how you can call it much slower than those drives.
Again, it does good in the sequential read/write tests. I said as much in my first post. But every test after that has it down at/near the bottom of the pack. Random read? Dead last. Random write? Third place. 80% mixed? At nearly all queue depths it's dead last. And when it's not last it's still at the bottom. Two other tests that stood out were the Application Storage Bandwidth and battery life tests which showed it again, dead last. Considering how well it did with the sequential read/write tests I would have thought it would have done better with the other tests. But test after test had it bringing up the rear. I get that it's not a performance drive and I wouldn't expect it to be a leader everywhere. Just really odd to me that it reads/writes so well only to have it fail so bad at everything else. Hopefully a firmware update can fix this.
I'm interested in these SSDs because I have performance SSDs for my OS. What I need is a large SSD for my steam folder. Something simple that can send the data to my system quickly. If I can get a large ~1TB drive that provides middle of the road speeds for my Steam folder at a much cheaper price than the Sumsung Evo's, etc then I'd be all over one. This article said they have a 960GB model, but if it performs this poorly then I'm passing.[/quotemsg]
You are completely misrepresenting the facts. Sequentials? When the Sapphire gets 11,000 QD1 random
write IOPS, and the Sandisk SSD Plus gets 496?