SHARE

Compressible 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.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the sequential read benchmark with queue depth of 32, the 960 EVO was 112% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the sequential write with queue depth 32, the 960 EVO was 69% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the random read test with 4 kiB blocks and QD 32, the 960 EVO was 29% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the random write test with 4 kiB blocks and QD32, the 960 EVO was 19% slower than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the sequential read benchmark, the 960 EVO was 49% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the sequential write benchmark, the 960 EVO was 70% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the 960 EVO was 9% faster than the HyperX Predator.

Samsung 950 EVO 500 GiB SSD

On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the 960 EVO was 22% faster than the HyperX Predator..