SHARE

Incompressible 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. Then 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.

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.

On the sequential read benchmark with QD 32, the Samsung 960 PRO was 5% faster than the 960 EVO, and 237% faster than the HyperX Predator.

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.

On the sequential write benchmark witn QD 32, the Samsung 960 PRO was 14% faster than the 960 EVO, and 94% faster than the HyperX Predator.

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.

On the random read test with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the Samsung 960 PRO was 16% faster than the 960 EVO, and 208% faster than the HyperX Predator.

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.

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the Samsung 960 PRO was 8% faster than the 960 EVO, and 105% faster than the HyperX Predator.

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.

On the sequential read benchmark, the Samsung 960 PRO was 27% faster than the 960 EVO, and 194% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 960 PRO 512 GiB

And on the sequential write benchmark, the Samsung 960 PRO was 4% faster than the 960 EVO, and 71% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 960 PRO 512 GiB

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Samsung 960 PRO was 18% slower than the 960 EVO, and 21% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 960 PRO 512 GiB

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Samsung 960 PRO was similar to the 960 EVO, and 88% faster than the HyperX Predator.