Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?

Features
By ,
published

SSDs serve up data quickly, and prices are low enough that some enthusiasts may want SSDs for data storage. Does the file system you use matter? We compare performance between FAT32, NTFS, and the newer exFAT file systems on two popular SSD architectures.

CrystalDiskMark: Random And Sequential Throughput

The CrystalDiskMark random 4 KB results confirm what we saw from AS SSD.

Throughput using 512 KB blocks turns out as we'd expect it, with exFAT and NTFS outperforming FAT32, which once again fails to impress.

Sequential transfer performance is comparable on all three file systems.

Patrick Schmid
45 Comments Comment from the forums
  • aznshinobi
    Those SSD drives.... *drool* Wish I could afford them.
    Reply
  • neon neophyte
    I remember the crossing from Fat32 to NTFS. It was significant even back then. Ever since I have craved a new file system offering to rekindle a fading memory of youth and joy. *sniff*
    Reply
  • I have a mac..
    Reply
  • hmp_goose

    Reply
  • aicom
    hmp_goose
    NTFS was heavily based on HPFS (when MS and IBM were both working on OS/2). It even shares the same MBR partition type code.
    Reply
  • confish21
    get article ty so much!
    Reply
  • billafu
    Enjoyed the article. Sadly, I am still unable to justify spending nearly a dollar per gigabyte for an SSD when HDDs are less than a dime per gig. Maybe when that price difference is a little bit closer.
    Reply
  • haplo602
    any other than windows/mac filesystems ? zfs ? btrfs ? ext3/4 ? jfs ? xfs ?
    Reply
  • lorfa
    Agree with haplo. Wanted to see ext4 at least.
    Reply
  • billafuEnjoyed the article. Sadly, I am still unable to justify spending nearly a dollar per gigabyte for an SSD when HDDs are less than a dime per gig. Maybe when that price difference is a little bit closer.120gb for a 120$ and HUGE performance increase and you still complain? How about you get a job.
    Reply