Performance

Much like any other SSD that comes through our office, we put the Agility through our standard benchmark suite. We know what the Indilinx 2 is capable of, but with Asynchronous NAND this time around the results could be completely different. Asynchronous tends to underperform in some situations.

I started off with CrystalDiskMark with both read and write speed testing. This is where the Vertex 4 really showed its stuff, especially in high queue length tests and in write speed results. The Agility 4 on the other hand wasn’t nearly as impressive, especially with its read speeds. It did however still out perform everything other than the Vertex 4 in high queue length read speed tests. Its write speeds were actually up above everyone else as well.

wm cdmread

wm cdmwrite

In our AS SSD benchmark we tests the drives file transfer performance with a game, program, and an ISO. This time around, the lower the score the better. After the CrystalDiskMark results I was a little worried, but the Agility 4 actually did very well on these. It still came in slower than its bigger brother and the Samsung 830, but that isn’t anything to be upset about. 

wm as_ssd

Our IOMeter benchmark is set to Random with 4K/QD30, this means our benchmark favors drives that handle high queue depth well, something that the Agility 4’s older brother the Vertex 4 did very well. The reason we do this is to see how a drive will scale as you put it under load; a drive that slows down with a high queue depth will slow to a crawl when you throw too much at it. When it was all said and done, our IOMeter results for the Agility 4 are impressive when compared to everything else we have tested other than the Vertex 4. But when you put the results next to the Vertex 4 results it’s easy to see how the cheaper Asynchronous NAND holds things back.

wm iometer

Last but not least we put the Agility 4 through a few tests using Passmark’s Advanced disk benchmark. We use settings designed to replicate the file activity that a file server, web server, workstation, and a database would see. The results were a lot less encouraging than what we have seen in our other results. The only benchmark that was competitive was the Database benchmark really, the others were considerably worse. Being the only Asynchronous drive of the bunch it’s easy to see what caused the difference.

wm passmark

 

Log in to comment

We have 1477 guests and no members online

supportus