The Kingston HyperX Fury RGB SSD Review: Bright Idea, Dimmed Performance

Mixed Random Performance

Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.

None of the drives in this batch that use Toshiba's BiCS3 3D TLC perform all that well on the mixed random I/O test. The Plextor M8V shows that the HyperX Fury RGB could do a bit better, but at least the Fury RGB is well ahead of the DRAMless Toshiba TR200 on this test.

Power Efficiency in MB/s/W	Average Power in W

When excluding the power used by the LEDs, the Fury RGB uses a bit less power on this test than most mainstream SATA SSDs. But the performance is low enough that the efficiency rating is still substantially lower than mainstream competition like the Crucial MX500.

HyperX Fury RGB 480GBHyperX Fury RGB 480GB (5V only)Samsung 850 EVO 500GBCrucial BX300 480GBPlextor M8V 512GBCrucial MX500 500GBHP S700 500GBADATA Ultimate SU800 512GBADATA XPG SX950 480GBToshiba TR200 480GBKingston A1000 480GBIntel SSD 545s 512GBADATA XPG SX8200 480GB

The performance and power consumption of the Fury RGB on the mixed random I/O test are both fairly steady throughout the test save for the typical jump at the end of the test when the workload shifts to pure random writes. Most mainstream drives deliver gradually increasing performance over the course of the test as the proportion of writes increases, and even some of the other BiCS3-based drives make significant gains during the last third of the test.

Mixed Sequential Performance

Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.

On the mixed sequential I/O test we again see the HyperX Fury RGB performing like a DRAMless SSD with at least 20% lower performance than most mainstream SATA SSDs.

Power Efficiency in MB/s/W	Average Power in W

The storage side of the Fury RGB consumes the normal amount of power for a mainstream SATA SSD on this test, so ends up with a clear last-place efficiency score. The DRAMless drives that perform similarly to the Fury RGB consume much less power and have above-average efficiency.

HyperX Fury RGB 480GBHyperX Fury RGB 480GB (5V only)Samsung 850 EVO 500GBCrucial BX300 480GBPlextor M8V 512GBCrucial MX500 500GBHP S700 500GBADATA Ultimate SU800 512GBADATA XPG SX950 480GBToshiba TR200 480GBKingston A1000 480GBIntel SSD 545s 512GBADATA XPG SX8200 480GB

During the first third of the mixed sequential I/O test the performance of the HyperX Fury RGB is inconsistent. As the proportion of writes in the workload increases, the drive settles down into a gradual decline in performance that keeps it just above the Toshiba TR200.