SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 840 EVO vs HyperX Savage SSD

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

Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score

No winner declared

Too close to call

Differences What are the advantages of each

Sibling view of Samsung 840 EVO

Reasons to consider the
Samsung 840 EVO

Report a correction
Faster 4k random read 318.8 MB/s vs 189.07 MB/s Around 70% faster 4k random read
Faster 4k random write 106.65 MB/s vs 58.47 MB/s More than 80% faster 4k random write
Lighter 53 g vs 92 g More than 40% lighter
Significantly lower 4k random write access time 2.34 ms vs 4.28 ms More than 45% lower 4k random write access time
Higher MTBF 1,500,000 hours vs 1,000,000 hours 50% higher MTBF
Lower 4k random read access time 0.78 ms vs 1.32 ms More than 40% lower 4k random read access time
Slightly higher PCMark vantage score 25,582 pts vs 24,116 pts More than 5% higher PCMark vantage score
Default view of Kingston HyperX Savage SSD

Reasons to consider the
Kingston HyperX Savage SSD

Report a correction
Lower avg. power consumption 1.85 Watts vs 2.29 Watts Around 20% lower avg. power consumption
Faster photoshop lens filter 53.8 s vs 56.6 s Around 5% faster photoshop lens filter

Benchmarks Real world tests of 840 EVO vs HyperX Savage SSD

4K Random Read

840 EVO
318.8 MB/s
HyperX Savage SSD
189.07 MB/s

4K Random Write

840 EVO
106.65 MB/s
HyperX Savage SSD
58.47 MB/s

Avg. Power Consumption

840 EVO
2.29 Watts
HyperX Savage SSD
1.85 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

840 EVO
2.34 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

840 EVO
0.78 ms

Comments

comments powered by Disqus