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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the sequential read benchmark, the Samsung 960 PRO was 27% faster than the 960 EVO, and 194% faster than the HyperX Predator.
And on the sequential write benchmark, the Samsung 960 PRO was 4% faster than the 960 EVO, and 71% faster than the HyperX Predator.
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.
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.
- Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The Samsung 960 EVO 500 GiB
- 3. How We Tested
- 4. Incompressible Data Test
- 5. 32 GiB write test
- 6. Conclusions
