Sequential Read Performance

Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.

Burst 128kB Sequential Read (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential read performance of the Kingston KC2000 is excellent, though slightly slower than the same SSD controller manages when paired with Micron 64L TLC rather than the Toshiba 96L TLC that Kingston is using.

Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data. This test is run twice: once with the drive prepared by sequentially writing the test data, and again after the random write test has mixed things up, causing fragmentation inside the SSD that isn't visible to the OS. These two scores represent the two extremes of how the drive would perform under real-world usage, where wear leveling and modifications to some existing data will create some internal fragmentation that degrades performance, but usually not to the extent shown here.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read

On the longer sequential read test that brings in some higher queue depths, the KC2000's performance doesn't stand out from other top TLC NVMe drives. The Samsung 970 EVO Plus is roughly 5-15% faster, but you have to step up to an MLC or Optane drive to see a huge boost to the worst-case fragmented data performance.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The power efficiency of The Kingston KC2000 during the sequential read test is not quite top tier, but it is still acceptable for a high-end NVMe SSD. In absolute terms, the KC2000 is one of the most power-hungry M.2 drives in this bunch, and it doesn't quite have enough performance to match.

The Kingston KC2000 is fairly well-behaved across the range of queue depths tested, reaching full speed at QD4 or higher. However, it is always a bit slower and more power-hungry than the ADATA SX8200 Pro.

Comparing the KC2000 against the entire library of test results shows that it mostly offers the performance expected from a PCIe 3 x4 drive, but doesn't quite saturate the link as well as the competition, and its power efficiency is nothing special.

Sequential Write Performance

Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.

Burst 128kB Sequential Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst sequential write speed of the Kingston KC2000 is much slower than the fastest high-end NVMe SSDs offer, but still acceptable for this market segment. The SSD controller clearly isn't the bottleneck since the ADATA SX8200 Pro is faster by over 200MB/s, and judging by the WD Black it appears the 96L BiCS4 TLC isn't really any faster than the 64L BiCS3 TLC.

Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write

On the longer sequential write test the KC2000 again isn't the fastest, but it holds up better than the Phison E12 drive and doesn't lose much ground relative to the other SM2262EN drive.

Sustained 128kB Sequential Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The power efficiency of the Kingston KC2000 during the sequential write test is good, but a bit lower than the fastest drives that only require slightly more power.

The Kingston KC2000 hits its full sequential write speed at QD2 and has no trouble maintaining that speed for the rest of the test thanks to the large SLC cache. However, it's still a much slower SLC write speed than Intel/Micron and Samsung NAND offers.

Plotting the KC2000's sequential write results against the broader landscape shows that the KC2000 doesn't make it very far into true high-end performance territory, and its power consumption is a bit high for the maximum speeds it does attain.

Random Performance Mixed Read/Write Performance
POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • LtGoonRush - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    The Silicon Power P34A80 uses the same controller and NAND as the MP510, but with newer, better-performing firmware. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    Do they use custom FW or just stock Phison one? You can install 12.3 (which I think is the latest) stock Phison FW on the MP510. Reply
  • LtGoonRush - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    It's stock Phison firmware, I thought Corsair didn't offer their own firmware updates for the MP510 (like many vendors) but I could be wrong. I know there's a method to flash the Phison reference firmware onto a reference drive, but I would only recommend that to the adventurous who don't mind wiping their drives. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Oh, Corsair doesn't offer the newest FW by themselves, I was refering to the stock Phison one that you can flash. :) Haven't seen anyone report a brick so far and the only people who might get a wiped drive are updating from way early FW as far as I saw. But doing a FW update and not backing up is just asking for trouble, whether it be official or not. Reply
  • sandberg123 - Monday, August 5, 2019 - link

    Actually, this will be faster than the 970 EVO in real life. Reply
  • Foeketijn - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    If I were in the SSD R&D business and not working for SAMSUNG, I would be getting depressed by now. Reply
  • Alistair - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    You must only be looking at The Destroyer? Too long and too read heavy? If you look at the Heavy test actually I think Adata is killing Samsung in overall performance for way less money. Just don't use the drive full that's all, easy enough to do when you can buy double the amount for the same price. Reply
  • TheUnhandledException - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    If you have to keep the drive half empty to avoid losing performance then the effective price per usable GB is higher than the list price. I agree ADATA is a good value for the buck but I wouldn't say they are killing Samsung (or anyone else) in the heavy benchmark. Reply
  • Strikamos - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    I'm planning on buying the Corsair MP510! Does it have the same problem as the ADATA? Loosing performance when full.. Thank you Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Every consumer SSD ever loses some performance when 100% full. Some are better (overprovisioning from the factory, SLC, MLC, TLC, QLC, TRIM, garbage collection, write amplification, wear leveling etc.) than others. TLC with SLC caches (which is the norm and great bang/buck) have a smaller SLC cache the fuller the drive gets. 42GB at empty is a typical figure for 512/1TB drives I think and it gets smaller. Keeping 10% free was an often advised figure in the days of MLC and garbage collection routines. I'd stick to that or 50/100 GB depending on size. My 1 TB system SSD has between 50 and 150GB free and I don't want to go below 50GB free. Things have generally become much better and if you run consumer workloads you will hardly notice a difference going nearly full. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now