Note: Our SSD testbed is currently producing suspiciously slow scores for The Destroyer, so those results have been omitted pending further investigation.

Note2: We are currently in the process of testing these benchmarks in PCIe 4.0 mode. Results will be added as they finish.

AnandTech 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.

ATSB Heavy
Average Data Rate
Average Latency Average Read Latency Average Write Latency
99th Percentile Latency 99th Percentile Read Latency 99th Percentile Write Latency
Energy Usage

The 250GB Samsung 980 PRO is a clear improvement across the board relative to the 970 EVO Plus. It still has some fairly high latency scores, especially for the full drive test run, but that's to be expected for this capacity class. The 1TB model seems to have sacrificed a bit of its full drive performance for in favor of a slight increase in empty-drive performance—the enlarged SLC caches are probably a contributing factor here.

Both drives show a significant reduction in energy usage compared to the older generation of Samsung M.2 NVMe drives, but there's still a ways to go before Samsung catches up to the most efficient 8-channel drives.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB Light
Average Data Rate
Average Latency Average Read Latency Average Write Latency
99th Percentile Latency 99th Percentile Read Latency 99th Percentile Write Latency
Energy Usage

The Samsung 980 PRO does not bring any significant improvements to performance on the Light test. Peak performance from most high-end NVMe drives is essentially the same, and the only meaningful differences are on the full-drive test runs. Aside from a relatively high 99th percentile write latency from the 250GB 980 PRO, neither capacity has any trouble with the full-drive test run.

Samsung has made significant improvements to energy efficiency with the 980 PRO. Samsung's previous generation of M.2 NVMe drives were among the most power-hungry in this segment, with their performance potential largely wasted on such a light workload. The 980 PRO cuts energy usage by a third compared to the 970 generation drives, bringing them more into competition with other high-end M.2 drives. But as with the Heavy test, there's still a lot of room for improvement as illustrated by drives like the WD Black SN750.

Cache Size Effects Random IO Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • romrunning - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

  • Tomatotech - Wednesday, September 23, 2020 - link

    See the StoragePro review for some eyebrow-raising numbers that may change your view.
  • Tams80 - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    What's the point of these if they are going to use TLC? They already make TLC SSDs and the market is pretty full.

    So what if using MLC is more expensive? Isn't the whole point of these to be their best of the best? And if an SLC cache benefits TLC SSDs, then why not have an MLC SSD with an SLC cache?
  • Kaziglu Bey - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    Not the hope we're looking for.
    Time for me to buy another 2TB SX8200 Pro.
  • vladx - Thursday, September 24, 2020 - link

    Yep, beyond enterprise workloads there's no point buying anything other than the SSD with best price/GB.
  • Makaveli - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    What were they thinking here.

    600 TBW on this "Pro" drive then a small 114GB SLC cache?

    The E16 offers 1,800 TBW at 1TB and 333GB SLC cache.

    Not impressed with this drive and looking forward to the E18 drives that are slowly coming out.
  • Luckz - Thursday, September 24, 2020 - link

    You mean it will just use the entire empty SSD, because leaving the SSD empty is both a 'feature' and a smart use case? I barely even have 10% free on actively used SSDs.
  • Golgatha777 - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    For $20 more, I'll take a slight performance hit, but gain 4X the endurance by buying a 512GB 970 Pro. There's been nothing worth upgrading to since the 950 Pro when it comes to real world usage anyway though.
  • MDD1963 - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    I've written 30 TB in 3 years to my 960 EVO...; folks worried about 'only' 600 TBW (60 years at my rate usage?) specs are amusing.
  • Makaveli - Tuesday, September 22, 2020 - link

    And its assuming to me that you think your anecdotal point speaks for the whole market.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now