SHARE

Compressible Data Test

As you will have gathered from the previous page, we measured the performance of each drive using CrystalDiskMark 5.

First, we set CrystalDiskMark to “All 0x00 Fill mode” to evaluate the performance of the SSD when dealing with compressible data.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the sequential read benchmark with QD 32, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 19% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 16% slower than the 960 EVO, and 184% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the sequential write benchmark with QD 32, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 10% faster than the Samsung 960 PRO, 28% faster than the 960 EVO, and 120% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the random read test with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was similar to the Samsung 960 PRO, 14% faster than the 960 EVO, and 131% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was on a technical tie with the Samsung 960 PRO, being 12% faster than the 960 EVO, and 104% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the sequential read benchmark, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 7% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 9% faster than the 960 EVO, and 111% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

And on the sequential write benchmark, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB performed similarly to the Samsung 960 PRO and to the 960 EVO, being 63% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 162% faster than the Samsung 960 PRO, 120% faster than the 960 EVO, and 224% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 24% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 29% slower than the 960 EVO, and 39% faster than the HyperX Predator.