SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of SSD320 vs Neutron

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

SSD320
7.6
Neutron
8.5
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

SSD320
9.1
Neutron
7.7
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

SSD320
9.1
Neutron
9.6
Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

SSD320
7.5
Neutron
7.9
Passmark Disk Rating, PCMark Vantage, AS SSD Score and 1 more

SSDBoss Score

read performance, write performance, real world benchmarks and Benchmarks

SSD320
7.9
Neutron
8.2

Winner
Corsair Neutron 

SSDBoss recommends the Corsair Neutron  based on its benchmarks.

See full details

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Transcend SSD320

Reasons to consider the
Transcend SSD320

Report a correction
Significantly faster 4k random write 105.79 MB/s vs 62.27 MB/s Around 70% faster 4k random write
Significantly faster 512K sequential write 509.62 MB/s vs 353.2 MB/s Around 45% faster 512K sequential write
Lower 4k random write access time 2.36 ms vs 4.01 ms More than 40% lower 4k random write access time
More capacity per dollar 1.28 GB/$ vs 1.09 GB/$ More than 15% more capacity per dollar
Front view of Corsair Neutron

Reasons to consider the
Corsair Neutron

Report a correction
Significantly faster 4k random read 215.37 MB/s vs 111.07 MB/s Around 95% faster 4k random read
Faster windows 7 boot-up time 8.5 s vs 9.9 s Around 15% faster windows 7 boot-up time
Higher AS SSD score 1,046 pts vs 841 pts Around 25% higher AS SSD score
Higher passmark rating 3,438 pts vs 2,483 pts Around 40% higher passmark rating
Faster tom's storage bench application 565 pts vs 474 pts Around 20% faster tom's storage bench application
Lower 4k random read access time 1.16 ms vs 2.25 ms Around 50% lower 4k random read access time
Faster AS SSD ISO copy 393.78 MB/s vs 314.69 MB/s More than 25% faster AS SSD ISO copy
Lower avg. power consumption 2.6 Watts vs 3.03 Watts Around 15% lower avg. power consumption

Benchmarks Real world tests of SSD320 vs Neutron

4K Random Read

SSD320
111.07 MB/s
Neutron
215.37 MB/s
SSD320 Neutron @ ssdreview.com
Given that performance is not impacted by data compressibility, that's to be expected as well as solid performance numbers in the real world tests.
Neutron | by Legit Reviews (Sep, 2012)

4K Random Write

SSD320
105.79 MB/s
Neutron
62.27 MB/s
SSD320 Neutron @ ssdreview.com
Corsair touts the 240GB version as reaching max performance numbers of 555 MB/s reads and 370 MB/s writes which we found to be spot on for the ATTO benchmark and not far off on the other tests.
Neutron | by Legit Reviews (Sep, 2012)

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

SSD320
9.9 s
Neutron
8.5 s
SSD320 Neutron @ ssdreview.com
Corsair has the honor of debuting this controller in their Neutron series of drives for which they offer a GTX version as well that boasts slightly better performance.
Neutron | by Legit Reviews (Sep, 2012)

Avg. Power Consumption

SSD320
3.03 Watts
Neutron
2.6 Watts
SSD320 Neutron @ ssdreview.com
It works very similarly to async, but with awesome power efficiency and real-world performance.
Neutron | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)

4K Random Read Access Time

SSD320
2.36 ms
Neutron
4.01 ms
SSD320 Neutron @ ssdreview.com
If you're just looking for quicker level loading times and speedier Windows boots, the difference is imperceptible until you start poking around with synthetic benchmarks or installing Windows 7 while holding a stopwatch - that's what your friendly neighbourhood PCF is for.
Neutron | by Tech Radar (Nov, 2012)

4K Random Write Access Time

SSD320
2.25 ms
Neutron
1.16 ms
SSD320 Neutron @ ssdreview.com
In this case, the controller and SATA 6Gbps bus are capable of faster throughput but the NAND can't keep up.
SSD320 | by Kristian-Vättö (Jan, 2013)

Comments

comments powered by Disqus