Does Your SSD's File System Affect Performance?
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.
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Current page: CrystalDiskMark: Random And Sequential Throughput
Prev Page AS SSD: Access Time, Copy Benchmark, And Overall Score Next Page Benchmark Results: Iometer 4 KB Random And Streaming Read/Write-
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 -
aicom hmp_gooseReply
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.
-
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 -
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