diff --git a/benchmark/sysbench-v3.md b/benchmark/sysbench-v3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..da473bc1d3938
--- /dev/null
+++ b/benchmark/sysbench-v3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+---
+title: TiDB Sysbench Performance Test Report -- v2.1 vs. v2.0
+category: benchmark
+---
+
+# TiDB Sysbench Performance Test Report -- v2.1 vs. v2.0
+
+## Test purpose
+
+This test aims to compare the performances of TiDB 2.1 and TiDB 2.0 in the OLTP scenario.
+
+## Test version, time, and place
+
+TiDB version: v2.1.0-rc.2 vs. v2.0.6
+
+Time: September, 2018
+
+Place: Beijing, China
+
+## Test environment
+
+IDC machine:
+
+| Type | Name |  
+| :-: | :-: |
+| OS | Linux (CentOS 7.3.1611) |
+| CPU | 40 vCPUs, Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v4 @ 2.20GHz |
+| RAM | 128GB |
+| DISK | Optane 500GB SSD \* 1 |  
+
+Sysbench version: 1.1.0
+
+## Test plan
+
+Use Sysbench to import **16 tables, with 10,000,000 pieces of data in each table**. With the HAProxy, requests are sent to the cluster at an incremental concurrent number. A single concurrent test lasts 5 minutes.
+
+### TiDB version information
+
+### v2.1.0-rc.2
+
+| Component | GitHash |
+| :-: | :-: |
+| TiDB | 08e56cd3bae166b2af3c2f52354fbc9818717f62 |
+| TiKV | 57e684016dafb17dc8a6837d30224be66cbc7246 |
+| PD | 6a7832d2d6e5b2923c79683183e63d030f954563 |
+
+### v2.0.6
+
+| Component | GitHash |
+| :-: | :-: |
+| TiDB | b13bc08462a584a085f377625a7bab0cc0351570 |
+| TiKV | 57c83dc4ebc93d38d77dc8f7d66db224760766cc |
+| PD | b64716707b7279a4ae822be767085ff17b5f3fea |
+
+### TiDB parameter configuration
+
+The default TiDB configuration is used in both v2.1 and v2.0.
+
+### TiKV parameter configuration
+
+The following TiKV configuration is used in both v2.1 and v2.0:
+
+```txt
+[readpool.storage]
+normal-concurrency = 8
+[server]
+grpc-concurrency = 8
+[raftstore]
+sync-log = false
+[rocksdb.defaultcf]
+block-cache-size = "60GB"
+[rocksdb.writecf]
+block-cache-size = "20GB"
+```
+
+### Cluster topology
+
+| Machine IP | Deployment instance |
+| :-: | :-: |
+| 172.16.30.31 | 1\*Sysbench 1\*HAProxy |
+| 172.16.30.32 | 1\*TiDB 1\*pd 1\*TiKV |
+| 172.16.30.33 | 1\*TiDB 1\*TiKV |
+| 172.16.30.34 | 1\*TiDB 1\*TiKV |
+
+## Test result
+
+### `Point Select` test
+
+| Version | Threads | QPS | 95% Latency (ms) |
+| :-: | :-: | :-: | :-: |
+| v2.1 | 64   | 111481.09 | 1.16  |
+| v2.1 | 128  | 145102.62 | 2.52  |
+| v2.1 | 256  | 161311.9  | 4.57  |
+| v2.1 | 512  | 184991.19 | 7.56  |
+| v2.1 | 1024 | 230282.74 | 10.84 |
+| v2.0 | 64   | 75285.87  | 1.93  |
+| v2.0 | 128  | 92141.79  | 3.68  |
+| v2.0 | 256  | 107464.93 | 6.67  |
+| v2.0 | 512  | 121350.61 | 11.65 |
+| v2.0 | 1024 | 150036.31 | 17.32 |
+
+![point select](../media/sysbench_v3_point_select.png)
+
+According to the statistics above, the `Point Select` query performance of TiDB 2.1 has increased by **50%** than that of TiDB 2.0.
+
+### `Update Non-Index` test
+
+| Version | Threads | QPS | 95% Latency (ms) |
+| :-: | :-: | :-: | :-: |
+| v2.1 | 64   | 18946.09 | 5.77   |
+| v2.1 | 128  | 22022.82 | 12.08  |
+| v2.1 | 256  | 24679.68 | 25.74  |
+| v2.1 | 512  | 25107.1  | 51.94  |
+| v2.1 | 1024 | 27144.92 | 106.75 |
+| v2.0 | 64   | 16316.85 | 6.91   |
+| v2.0 | 128  | 20944.6  | 11.45  |
+| v2.0 | 256  | 24017.42 | 23.1   |
+| v2.0 | 512  | 25994.33 | 46.63  |
+| v2.0 | 1024 | 27917.52 | 92.42  |
+
+![update non-index](../media/sysbench_v3_update_non_index.png)
+
+According to the statistics above, the `Update Non-Index` write performance of TiDB 2.1 and TiDB 2.0 is almost the same.
+
+### `Update Index` test
+
+| Version | Threads | QPS | 95% Latency (ms) |
+| :-: | :-: | :-: | :-: |
+| v2.1 | 64   | 9934.49  | 12.08  |
+| v2.1 | 128  | 10505.95 | 25.28  |
+| v2.1 | 256  | 11007.7  | 55.82  |
+| v2.1 | 512  | 11198.81 | 106.75 |
+| v2.1 | 1024 | 11591.89 | 200.47 |
+| v2.0 | 64   | 9754.68  | 11.65  |
+| v2.0 | 128  | 10603.31 | 24.38  |
+| v2.0 | 256  | 11011.71 | 50.11  |
+| v2.0 | 512  | 11162.63 | 104.84 |
+| v2.0 | 1024 | 12067.63 | 179.94 |
+
+![update index](../media/sysbench_v3_update_index.png)
+
+According to the statistics above, the `Update Index` write performance of TiDB 2.1 and TiDB 2.0 is almost the same.
diff --git a/media/sysbench_v3_point_select.png b/media/sysbench_v3_point_select.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..42232abc105de
Binary files /dev/null and b/media/sysbench_v3_point_select.png differ
diff --git a/media/sysbench_v3_update_index.png b/media/sysbench_v3_update_index.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..bbc65d10814ae
Binary files /dev/null and b/media/sysbench_v3_update_index.png differ
diff --git a/media/sysbench_v3_update_non_index.png b/media/sysbench_v3_update_non_index.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..0c003ace60f32
Binary files /dev/null and b/media/sysbench_v3_update_non_index.png differ