SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of HyperX 3K vs 520

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

Passmark Disk Rating, PCMark Vantage, AS SSD Score and 1 more

SSDBoss Score

read performance, write performance, real world benchmarks and Benchmarks

Winner
Kingston HyperX 3K 

SSDBoss recommends the Kingston HyperX 3K  based on its read performance, write performance and real world benchmarks.

See full details

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Kingston HyperX 3K

Reasons to consider the
Kingston HyperX 3K

Report a correction
Higher capacity 480 GB vs 240 GB 2x higher capacity
Faster 4k random write 109.63 MB/s vs 81.39 MB/s Around 35% faster 4k random write
Faster windows 7 boot-up time 9.7 s vs 11.3 s Around 15% faster windows 7 boot-up time
Lower 4k random read access time 1.94 ms vs 2.82 ms More than 30% lower 4k random read access time
Faster random read 74,000 IOPS vs 50,000 IOPS Around 50% faster random read
Faster AS SSD ISO copy 393.9 MB/s vs 262.98 MB/s Around 50% faster AS SSD ISO copy
Lower 4k random write access time 2.28 ms vs 3.08 ms More than 25% lower 4k random write access time
Front view of Intel 520

Reasons to consider the
Intel 520

Report a correction
Lighter 78 g vs 97 g Around 20% lighter
Lower avg. power consumption 2.66 Watts vs 2.99 Watts More than 10% lower avg. power consumption
Higher MTBF 1,200,000 hours vs 1,000,000 hours 20% higher MTBF

Benchmarks Real world tests of HyperX 3K vs Intel 520

4K Random Read

HyperX 3K
128.52 MB/s
Intel 520
88.59 MB/s

4K Random Write

HyperX 3K
109.63 MB/s
Intel 520
81.39 MB/s

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

HyperX 3K
9.7 s
Intel 520
11.3 s

Avg. Power Consumption

HyperX 3K
2.99 Watts
Intel 520
2.66 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

HyperX 3K
2.28 ms
Intel 520
3.08 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

HyperX 3K
1.94 ms
Intel 520
2.82 ms

Reviews Word on the street

HyperX 3K  vs Intel 520 

8.0
7.6
Because of this the NAND is less expensive helping to drive the price down while retaining the pace you expect of a drive carrying the HyperX branding.
HyperX 3K

Comments

comments powered by Disqus