0 Comments
| Kingston HyperX FURY vs 3K |
Released June, 2014
Kingston HyperX FURY
- 120 GB
- 2.5" SATA III
by Kristian-Vättö (Jun, 2014)Desktop capacities will be limited to 8GB at launch while server DIMMs will be available in 16GB as well.
VS
Released April, 2012
Kingston HyperX 3K
- 480 GB
- 2.5" SATA III
- 0 MB
by Legit Reviews (Jun, 2012)jpg files, the HyperX 3K was very close to posting the fastest time but for some reason the.
SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of HyperX FURY vs HyperX 3K
read performance | |
How quickly data is read from the drive | |
HyperX FURY 5.3 HyperX 3K 5.9 | |
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read |
write performance | |
How quickly data is written to the drive | |
HyperX FURY 6.3 HyperX 3K 6.9 | |
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write |
real world benchmarks | |
How well the drive performs common tasks | |
HyperX FURY 7.3 HyperX 3K 7.8 | |
Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy |
Benchmarks | |
How well the drive performs on common benchmarks | |
HyperX FURY 6.1 HyperX 3K 6.4 | |
PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Lower avg. power consumption | 2.54 Watts | vs | 2.99 Watts | More than 15% lower avg. power consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
More capacity per dollar | 2.67 GB/$ | vs | 1.88 GB/$ | More than 40% more capacity per dollar | |||
Thinner thickness | 7 mm | vs | 10 mm | More than 25% thinner thickness | |||
| |||||||
Significantly faster 4k random write | 109.63 MB/s | vs | 32.88 MB/s | More than 3.2x faster 4k random write | |||
Higher capacity | 480 GB | vs | 120 GB | 4x higher capacity | |||
Much lower 4k random read access time | 1.94 ms | vs | 8.07 ms | 4.2x lower 4k random read access time | |||
Faster 4k random read | 128.52 MB/s | vs | 30.99 MB/s | Around 4.2x faster 4k random read | |||
Faster 512K sequential read | 527.41 MB/s | vs | 260.03 MB/s | More than 2x faster 512K sequential read | |||
Much lower 4k random write access time | 2.28 ms | vs | 7.6 ms | 3.3x lower 4k random write access time | |||
Faster windows 7 boot-up time | 9.7 s | vs | 10.8 s | More than 10% faster windows 7 boot-up time | |||
Higher AS SSD score | 758 pts | vs | 368 pts | More than 2x higher AS SSD score | |||
Significantly faster photoshop lens filter | 56.3 s | vs | 63.2 s | More than 10% faster photoshop lens filter | |||
Higher PCMark vantage score | 25,396 pts | vs | 21,542 pts | Around 20% higher PCMark vantage score | |||
Faster AS SSD ISO copy | 393.9 MB/s | vs | 162.03 MB/s | Around 2.5x faster AS SSD ISO copy |
Benchmarks Real world tests of HyperX FURY vs 3K
4K Random Read
HyperX FURY
30.99 MB/s
HyperX 3K
128.52 MB/s
4K Random Write
HyperX FURY
32.88 MB/s
HyperX 3K
109.63 MB/s
Windows 7 Boot-up Time
HyperX FURY
10.8 s
HyperX 3K
9.7 s
Avg. Power Consumption
HyperX FURY
2.54 Watts
HyperX 3K
2.99 Watts
4K Random Read Access Time
HyperX FURY
7.6 ms
HyperX 3K
2.28 ms
4K Random Write Access Time
HyperX FURY
8.07 ms
HyperX 3K
1.94 ms
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$45 | $43 | |
HyperX FURY vs SSDNow V300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$45 | ||
HyperX FURY vs HyperX Savage SSD | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$45 | ||
HyperX FURY vs WD Green PC SSD | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$45 | ||
HyperX FURY vs 840 EVO | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$45 | ||
HyperX FURY vs SSDNow UV400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$256 | ||
HyperX 3K vs 840 EVO | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$256 | $43 | |
HyperX 3K vs SSDNow V300 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$438 | ||
840 Pro vs 840 EVO | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | ||
M500 vs MX300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $63 | |
Ultra II vs SSD Plus | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$63 | ||
SSD Plus vs SSDNow UV400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
SSD 850 EVO vs WD Blue PC SSD | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
MX300 vs MX500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
SSDNow UV400 vs WD Green PC SSD | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
IKnowIT (05:13 PM, March 7, 2015)