Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB SSD Review
Compressible Data Test
Contents
As you will have gathered from the previous page, we measured the performance of each drive using CrystalDiskMark.
It is important to note that we connected the SSDs to a SATA-600 port on our motherboard rather than a SATA-300 port, which could cause performance limitations.
First, we set CrystalDiskMark to “All 0x00 Fill mode” to evaluate the performance of the SSD when dealing with compressible data.
On the sequential read benchmark, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 11% faster than the V300, and had similar performance to the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
On the sequential write benchmark, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 22% slower than the V300, but 77% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
On the random read test with 512 kiB blocks, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 15% slower than the V300, but 13% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
On the random write test with 512 kiB blocks, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 57% slower than the V300 and 4% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 12% slower than the V300 and 29% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks, all the drives performed the same way.
On the random read benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 217% faster than the V300, and 74% faster than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.
On the random write benchmark with 4 kiB blocks and queue depth of 32, the Kingston SSDNow UV400 120 GiB was 50% slower than the V300 and 16% slower than the SanDisk SSD PLUS.