![]() The performance instability continues on the larger ATTO 8GB test set, with even more extreme swings in performance. Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 8GB Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 8GB Chart Unfortunately for the A2000 this includes the 32MB datapoint that my results chart is drawn from, causing it to display particularly poor write performance on my graph. For portions of the run performance rides relatively close to the rated sequential performance, but several of the tests show significant variability in performance. Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 256MB Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 256MB ChartĪTTO results are not particularly good. ATTO was tested at both 256MB and 8GB file sizes. The ATTO Disk Benchmark has been a staple of drive sequential performance testing for years. The Intel 665p with its QLC NAND manages a better write performance here, which is disappointing for the A2000. On the larger CrystalDiskMark test, write performance slips up a bit and drops to 1400 MB/s. Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 8GB Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 8GB Chart Given the specs are on the lower-end of PCIe 3.0 drives it is no surprise the A2000 finds itself near the bottom of our charts, but judged in isolation there is nothing wrong with the results on the A2000. The Kingston A2000 very nearly matches its rated 2200 MB/s read and 2000 MB/s write speeds, with results coming in close enough for me to give it a pass. Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 1GB Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 1GB Chart CrystalDiskMark 圆4ĬrystalDiskMark is used as a basic starting point for benchmarks as it is something commonly run by end-users as a sanity check. We test using both the default smaller test size as well as larger test sets on our benchmarks. This allows us to see the difference between lighter and heavier workloads.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |