Performance in FC-Test
For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the SSD and formatted in NTFS and then in FAT32. A file-set is then created, read from the SSD, copied within the same partition and copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the SSD is calculated. The Windows and Programs file-sets consist of a large number of small files whereas the other three patterns (ISO, MP3, and Install) include a few large files each.
We’d like to note that the copying test is indicative of the drive’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the SSD is working with two threads (one for reading and one for writing) when copying files.
This test produces too much data, so we will only discuss the results achieved with the Install, ISO and Programs file-sets in NTFS. You can use the following link to view the results in FAT32.
We have the same standings when writing any file-set. The X25-E is in the lead, followed by the Corsair, which in its turn is ahead of the MLC-based models from Intel. Comparing this to the HDD’s performance, we can see that modern SSDs are equal to or better than the best of modern HDDs in this test. The tested SSDs are all faster than the WD Caviar Black, which delivers average results in this test for an HDD.
The tested SSDs are two times as fast as the HDD irrespective of the file-set. The three models from Intel go neck and neck, the Corsair lagging somewhat behind. The 25MBps gap doesn’t look large considering that the SSDs are as fast as 150MBps and more.
There are no surprises at copying files. The X25-M is in the lead due to its higher write speed. Next goes the Corsair. The SSDs are all much better than the HDD. The Corsair rather fails on large files, though. Is it some flaw in its caching mechanisms?