SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of UTX-2200 vs 840 EVO

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

UTX-2200
6.1
840 EVO
6.6
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

UTX-2200
7.3
840 EVO
6.9
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

UTX-2200
7.8
840 EVO
7.9
Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

UTX-2200
6.4
840 EVO
6.7
PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score

No winner declared

Too close to call

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of takeMS UTX-2200

Reasons to consider the
takeMS UTX-2200

Report a correction
Faster 4k random write 165.85 MB/s vs 106.65 MB/s More than 55% faster 4k random write
Higher MTBF 2,000,000 hours vs 1,500,000 hours Around 35% higher MTBF
Lower 4k random write access time 1.51 ms vs 2.34 ms More than 35% lower 4k random write access time
Sibling view of Samsung 840 EVO

Reasons to consider the
Samsung 840 EVO

Report a correction
Significantly higher capacity 1,000 GB vs 480 GB More than 2x higher capacity
Faster 4k random read 318.8 MB/s vs 185.79 MB/s More than 70% faster 4k random read
Higher AS SSD score 1,198 pts vs 630 pts More than 90% higher AS SSD score
Lighter 53 g vs 81 g Around 35% lighter
Lower 4k random read access time 0.78 ms vs 1.35 ms More than 40% lower 4k random read access time
Lower avg. power consumption 2.29 Watts vs 2.56 Watts More than 10% lower avg. power consumption

Benchmarks Real world tests of UTX-2200 vs 840 EVO

4K Random Read

UTX-2200
185.79 MB/s
840 EVO
318.8 MB/s

4K Random Write

UTX-2200
165.85 MB/s
840 EVO
106.65 MB/s

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

UTX-2200
9.8 s
840 EVO
9.3 s

Avg. Power Consumption

UTX-2200
2.56 Watts
840 EVO
2.29 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

UTX-2200
1.51 ms
840 EVO
2.34 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

UTX-2200
1.35 ms
840 EVO
0.78 ms

Comments

comments powered by Disqus