reviews 
Hardware Guides Kingston HyperX 3K SSD Review & Benchmarks - 3K SSD Synthetic Benchmarks
Hardware Guides Kingston HyperX 3K SSD Review & Benchmarks - 3K SSD Synthetic Benchmarks
| Article Index |
|---|
| Kingston HyperX 3K SSD Review & Benchmarks |
| 3K SSD Synthetic Benchmarks |
| Gaming Benchmarks |
| HyperX 3K Conclusion |
| All Pages |
Page 2 of 4
HyperX Synthetic Benchmarks
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.
Test Rig Specifications
| 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.
ATTO Disk Benchmark
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.
AS-SSD Core Benchmark
AS-SSD's compression benchmark.
AS-SSD's copy benchmark.
HD Tune Pro Benchmark
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.
CrystalDiskMark
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...
Comments (8)
-
2012-04-23 07:40:59 | ssd or hdd
I built one one of yer $1000 systems early last year ... its still going strong, thanks again for the guide :-)
I had a bit of a windfall and now want to buy some more parts for fun... should I get an ssd? What do you think about this SSD vs another one? Id like to stay as close to $150 as possible, but can scale if it makes a huge difference.
-
2012-04-22 11:01:56 | Lelldorianx
@SpaceBaller:
Sweet! That's an awesome build nice choice. Personally, the SSD is a great upgrade, but I don't know that I'd recommend it on that build. I'd probably push you toward better video or processing power before an SSD upgrade. SSDs are great and very fast, but you'll notice better graphics before you notice decreased loading times.
-
2012-04-14 18:29:57 | SpaceBaller
hi
i built this i3 system you posted a few month ago
http://www.gamersnexus.net/pc-builds/46-pcbuildupg/730-i3-budget-pc- gaming-build-feb-12
can someone here tell me : is a ssd worth the upgrade? i just have a 7, 200 rpm HDD now. i play mostly SWTOR and some BF3... quite a difference, i know. but mostly SWTOR
my gpu is a 6850, still on the i3-2120. should i be considering an upgrade somewher else before ssd?
thanks
-
2012-04-23 07:42:09 | Lelldorianx
Fixed!
Thanks again for spotting it. That's what I get for complicating the test with multiple drive types and configurations :)
How's the Vertex 3 doing? Have you benchmarked any load times in games with it yet?
-
2012-04-14 19:17:23 | RussTC3
I only noticed because it happened to me. I ran some benchmarks on my Vertex 3 60GB SSD and while the results were high with CrystalDiskMark, they weren't as high as advertised. I then tried out AS SSD only to notice the pciide BAD error. I remember changing the controller to AHCI, but apparently it didn't stick.
Anyways, I made the changes and re-ran both AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark and the benchmarks showed a significant ~50% increase in read speeds (~30% increase in write speeds). WEI score went from a 7.1 to a 7.6.
-
RussTC3 wrote:The pciide BAD error that AS SSD is showing indicates that your controller is not set to AHCI mode. If it's the boot device, you'll need to enable AHCI in the registry before enabling it in the bios.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/922976
After you edit the registry and then enable AHCI in the bios, run the benchmarks again and you'll notice a fairly significant change.Whoops, I uploaded the wrong screenshot. Thanks for spotting that... gimme a min to swap 'em out.
-
2012-04-14 17:11:51 | RussTC3
The pciide BAD error that AS SSD is showing indicates that your controller is not set to AHCI mode. If it's the boot device, you'll need to enable AHCI in the registry before enabling it in the bios.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/922976
After you edit the registry and then enable AHCI in the bios, run the benchmarks again and you'll notice a fairly significant change.
Powered by Compojoom comment 4.2.1
From Around the Web
I had a bit of a windfall and now want to buy some more parts for fun... should I get an ssd? What do you think about this SSD vs another one? Id like to stay as close to $150 as possible, but can scale if it makes a huge difference.
Which one did you build? A $1000 system is already in the range of needing an SSD, so you're in a good spot. At $150, I'd recommend looking at these SSDs as your primary options.
The Vertex and Force are extremely fast and affordable SSDs, the HyperX is a bit higher in price but advertises slightly faster speeds, and the AGT is another common choice (though I'd recommend the Vertex all day long over the AGT).
Let me know if you need more help!