Compressible Data Test
As mentioned in the previous page, me measured the performance of each drive using the CrystalDiskMark 4 program. In this version, the software performs sequential and random reading and writing with 4 kiB blocks, first with a queue depth (QD) of 32, and then with a QD of one. So, it does not only test the performance with a single task, but also the performance with simultaneou read and write requisition, mimicking a scenario such as the one found in database servers.
Also keep in mind that CrystalDiskMark 4 uses a different measuring methodology from CrystalDiskMark version 3, so data obtained with different versions are not comparable.
First, we ran CrystalDiskMark in “All 0x00 Fill mode”, where the data writen on the drive are only zeros, in order to measure the SSD performance with compressible data.
On the sequential read test with a queue depth of 32, the Predator was 178% faster than the HyperX Savage.
On the sequential write test with a queue depth of 32, the Predator was 89% faster than the Savage.
On the random reading test with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the HyperX Predator was 38% faster than the Savage.
On the random writing test with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the Savage was 11% faster than the Predator.
On the simple sequential read test (i.e., queue depth of one), the Predator was 28% faster than the Savage.
On the simple sequential writing test (i.e., queue depth of one), the Predator beat the Savage by 105%.
On the simple random reading test, the Predator was 68% slower than the HyperX Savage.
On the random write test with 4 kiB blocks, the Predator was 11% slower than the Savage.