|Kingston HyperX 3K SSD Review & Benchmarks|
|3K SSD Synthetic Benchmarks|
|HyperX 3K Conclusion|
Once again, I'll refer you to our SSD Dictionary if you're not sure what the differences between sequential and 4K random read/writes are.
|CPU||i7-930 Nehalem (Native)|
|Memory||12GB DDR3 1600MHz Triple-Channel|
|GPU||NVIDIA GTX 580|
|HDD Tested||640GB Western Digital Caviar Black 7200RPM|
|SSD Tested||240GB Kingston HyperX 3K SSD|
There can never be too many benchmarking applications. Varying algorithms and other factors result in differing calculations between benchmarks, so keep that in mind as you read on. AS-SSD and CrystalDiskMark, for example, don't show identical results, despite their identical testing conditions. Just as in the real world tests, this has as much to do with the drive as it does with software programming.
I'm giving you all the data I collected so that you can test your system against mine if there's a particular program you prefer. Let me know in the comments if I missed one that you'd like to see added.
Why do larger files have better transfer rates? As with sequential file I/O operations, a nice way to think about it is how long the drive takes to get "settled in." Blasting dozens of smaller, scattered files is slower than pushing a single, larger file.
The rates in the above image are about what were advertised, so nothing too surprising there. It is nice to see something back it up, though. This test was run with a queue depth of 4.
I used HD Tune Pro more extensively in the 'real world' tests, so check on the next page for more of those. I did run a quick read bench, though, since more data never hurts anyone.
Unlike some of our other tools, this one isn't much of a stress-tester, but to add some fun, I compared it directly against the Caviar Black. Yeah, we all knew what was going to happen...