SHARE

Incompressible Data Test

On this test, we left CrystalDiskMark at standard mode, with random, non-compressible data.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the sequential reading test with a queue depth of 32 and non-compressible data, the HyperX Predator was 180% faster than the HyperX Savage.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the sequential write test with a queue depth of 32, the Predator was 91% faster than the Savage.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the random read test with 4 kiB blocks and a queue depth of 32, the HyperX Predator was 25% faster than the HyperX Savage.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the random write test with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Savage was 11% faster than the Predator.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the simple sequential read test (i.e., queue depth of one), the Predator was 71% faster than the Savage.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the simple sequential write test (i.e., queue depth of one), the Predator was 104% faster than the Savage.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

On the simple random read test with 4 kiB blocks, the Predator was 24% faster than the HyperX Savage.

Kingston HyperX Predator vs. HyperX Savage 480 GB

However, on the simple random write test, the Predator was 7% slower than the Savage.