Page 1:Which 64 GB SSD Is The Best?
Page 2:Simplfying The SandForce Landscape
Page 3:Test Setup And Benchmarks
Page 4:Benchmark Results: Storage Bench v1.0 And PCMark 7
Page 5:Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Performance
Page 6:Benchmark Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
Page 7:SandForce: Incompressible Performance
Page 8:Real-World Tests
Page 9:Crowning An Entry-Level SSD Performance King
Page 10:Storage Bench v1.0, In More Detail
Page 11:More Background On Our Benchmarks
Benchmark Results: Storage Bench v1.0 And PCMark 7
As always, we're turning to PCMark 7 and our own Storage Bench v1.0 to help us examine storage performance.
All four low-capacity SSDs fall into the same ranking order in our Storage Bench chart above and PCMark 7 results below.
Samsung’s 64 GB 830 leads the pack by a wide margin in our trace, nearly besting the 128 GB Crucial m4 that previously earned our Recommended Buy award, thanks to its emphasis on sequential transfers.
The 60 GB drive armed with a SandForce controller and synchronous ONFi-compatible NAND follows closely behind the 64 GB m4, and you can clearly see just how much performance switching to asynchronous signaling costs the architecture. That’s basically half of the Samsung drive's performance.
In PCMark 7, the gap between all four low-capacity drives closes, as the 60 GB SandForce-based SSD with asynchronous NAND is only 42% slower than the 64 GB Samsung 830. This narrower range is the result of Futuremark giving more weight to random transfers. Given the 10 bucks separating all four drives, the Samsung offering looks mighty tempting right out of the gate.
- Which 64 GB SSD Is The Best?
- Simplfying The SandForce Landscape
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Storage Bench v1.0 And PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: 4 KB Random Performance
- Benchmark Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
- SandForce: Incompressible Performance
- Real-World Tests
- Crowning An Entry-Level SSD Performance King
- Storage Bench v1.0, In More Detail
- More Background On Our Benchmarks