Your data. Your choice.

If you select «Essential cookies only», we’ll use cookies and similar technologies to collect information about your device and how you use our website. We need this information to allow you to log in securely and use basic functions such as the shopping cart.

By accepting all cookies, you’re allowing us to use this data to show you personalised offers, improve our website, and display targeted adverts on our website and on other websites or apps. Some data may also be shared with third parties and advertising partners as part of this process.

Guide

Comparing five PCIe 4.0 SSDs

Kevin Hofer
29.3.2024
Translation: Patrik Stainbrook

Looking for a new PCIe 4.0 SSD? You’re in the right place. I’m comparing five SSDs from different manufacturers, revealing which one’s worthwhile for which application.

Reading: only minor differences

I measure read speeds with the CrystalDiskMark program. This shows that any differences between the SSDs in sequential reading are small. In random reading, the Samsung and Crucial SSDs – and at 80 per cent full Corsair too – perform significantly worse than Kingston and Western Digital.

The first value per SSD in the graph refers to sequential reading. The second value, on the other hand, refers to random reading and writing. If you work with large files, the first will be relevant for you. But if you use small files, you'll want to look at the second.

Even if the differences here are small, I’d go for Kingston or Western Digital in the read category, they deliver the best values.

Writing: no clear winner

Writing results are similar to reading. Any differences particularly stand out when writing randomly in CrystalDiskMark. The Corsair SSD shows varying performance empty versus 80 per cent full. With less available space, the sequential write speed is reduced by 1,000 megabytes per second.

In a practical test, I copy a 10-gigabyte file from a RAM disk to the SSDs. The RAM disk ensures that the SSD is the bottleneck, as the disk can achieve a much higher write and read rate. I don’t measure any differences between the fill levels in this test. The fact that the Corsair SSD suffers no drop here is due to the sequential writing used with the test file. In this case, the Corsair also had no drop in CrystalDiskMark.

If I write continuously at 80 per cent full, maximum speed only lasts for 40 to 60 GB of written data. This happens because SLC mode is shorter at higher fill levels.

Based on the tests, I advise you use the Western Digital SSD. Not only is it fast, it also maintains high speeds for a relatively long time and doesn’t slow down too much.

Copying: only Corsair falls off

When copying, i.e. reading and writing to the SSDs at the same time, I duplicate the 10 GB file on the SSDs. Here, the Samsung SSD takes the lead when empty and at 80 per cent full. The differences between Kingston, Western Digital and Crucial are small. Only the Corsair slows down its copying speed significantly at 80 per cent full.

Based on these test results, the Samsung SSD wins.

Office: only Crucial lags behind

In Office applications, Samsung is once again at the top. When empty, only the Crucial SSD can keep up. However, as soon as it’s 80 per cent full, it falls behind and achieves similar results to the other SSDs.

Gaming: Crucial suffers again at high fill level

In the 3DMark gaming benchmark, the Western Digital SSD comes out on top by some distance. The SSDs from Kingston and Samsung are consistent both when empty and when 80 per cent full. Corsair and Crucial’s SSDs show greater losses at higher fill levels.

Western Digital wins the race for best all-rounder

Overall, the SN850X from Western Digital performs best in the tests. It won out in three categories, reading, writing and gaming, and can at least keep up when it comes to copying and Office apps. The Corsair SSD performs the worst.

However, the differences between these SSDs are small. You won’t notice them, especially when working with Office. Loading times in games are also very similar. You’ll only notice a small difference if you have to write huge amounts of data. So if you have a Corsair MP 600 Pro NH installed, you don’t have to switch to the test winner.

The Samsung SSD took second place, closely followed by the Kingston SSD. Crucial would also have scored well, but loses the most performance at a fill level of 80 per cent.

129 people like this article


User Avatar
User Avatar

From big data to big brother, Cyborgs to Sci-Fi. All aspects of technology and society fascinate me.


Guide

Practical solutions for everyday problems with technology, household hacks and much more.

Show all

These articles might also interest you

  • Guide

    Fast and reliable: The best SSDs for PCs and laptops

    by Stefanie Enge

  • Product test

    Crucial can’t reclaim the crown with the T710

    by Kevin Hofer

  • Product test

    Samsung SSD 9100 Pro review: fast, but not fast enough

    by Kevin Hofer