SHARE

Incompressible Data Test

For the second test, we set CrystalDiskMark to the default mode, which uses incompressible data. As both results were similar for all the tested SSDs, we choose to show only the uncompressible data results.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the sequential read benchmark with QD 32, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 22% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 18% slower than the 960 EVO, and 163% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the sequential write benchmark witn QD 32, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 46% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 38% slower than the 960 EVO, and 5% 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, 15% faster than the 960 EVO, and 206% 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 similar to the Samsung 960 PRO, 5% faster than the 960 EVO, and 100% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the sequential read benchmark, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 42% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 27% slower than the 960 EVO, and 70% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

And on the sequential write benchmark, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 60% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 58% slower than the 960 EVO, and 31% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 20% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 34% slower than the 960 EVO, and similar to the HyperX Predator.

Kingston KC1000 480 GiB

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Kingston KC1000 480 GiB was 49% slower than the Samsung 960 PRO, 47% slower than the 960 EVO, and similar to the HyperX Predator.