AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here. As with the ATSB Heavy test, this test is run with the drive both freshly erased and empty, and after filling the drive with sequential writes.

ATSB - Light (Data Rate)

The overall performance of the Kingston KC2000 on the Light test is another disappointment, since it is basically the same speed as last year's entry-level NVMe drive from Kingston that used the less powerful Phison E8 controller and an older generation of Toshiba NAND. The KC2000 handles a full drive better than other recent Silicon Motion drives, but even in that worst-case scenario it's still substantially slower than most high-end NVMe drives.

ATSB - Light (Average Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Latency)

The average latencies from the KC2000 during the Light test are a bit high compared to most high-end drives, but it's quick enough to not be a problem for lighter workloads. The 99th percentile latency is fine when the Light test is run on an empty drive, but when the drive is full it starts to stutter more than a decent SATA drive.

ATSB - Light (Average Read Latency)ATSB - Light (Average Write Latency)

Splitting the average latencies by reads and writes, we see that both write latency scores for the KC2000 are a bit on the slow side for something aspiring to be a high-end drive, while the read latency is very competitive for the empty-drive test run and only falls a bit behind when the drive is full.

ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Read Latency)ATSB - Light (99th Percentile Write Latency)Breaking down the 99th percentile latency scores reveals where the KC2000 really gets into trouble: when dealing with a full drive and the unavoidable pressure of background work, the KC2000's read QoS suffers with 99th percentile read latencies jumping to several milliseconds—close to hard drive seek times. This is a known issue for the Silicon Motion SM2262EN controller, which doesn't seem to be very good at interrupting background work to quickly handle more important reads. Fortunately, the 99th percentile write latency is nowhere near as bad as we've seen from drives like the ADATA SX8200 Pro.

ATSB - Light (Power)

The Kingston KC2000 doesn't win any prizes for energy efficiency during the Light test. When the test is run on an empty drive the energy usage is decent but like the other Silicon Motion drives it gets more power hungry when the drive is full and there's more background work to be done. Even in that case, it is more efficient than Samsung's drives, which burn a lot of power to offer performance that simply doesn't matter on a light workload like this test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance
Comments Locked

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • Strikamos - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    Thank you for the reply @Death666Angel. It will be my main storage, will have the Operating System running and I'll be doing video editing and rendering.
    I was looking for 2TB options and wanted to stay away from the Samsungs because of my budget. The Corsair MP510 and the ADATA seemed to be the best options available.
  • patrickjp93 - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    more like 1/4 over-provisioned, so the math still very much favours Adata and more of them unless your power bill are something fierce or your system density is a key priority.
  • Foeketijn - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    I didn't mean they are unbeatable. More like, the 970's are already a year on the market and still beat this latest and greatest kingston SSD with their "budget" offering.
  • eastcoast_pete - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    Thanks Billy! One suggestion: Show price-performance ratios for the key parameters. Yes, most of us would love to have a 1.5 or 2 TB Optane SSD in our "if I won the lottery " system, but that is just not the real world. Any chance of such a rating, even as a summary score of sorts?
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    SSD pricing, and all memory (DRAM/NAND) for that matter, is too dynamic to make such graph useful. Tomorrow's price might be totally different, not to forget pricing in different stores, regions, sales etc.
  • erinadreno - Wednesday, July 24, 2019 - link

    Is that just me or there's too many NAND packages for 1 TB drive?
  • sjkpublic@gmail.com - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    2TB write endurance 1200 TB? 600 writes and it heads south? Misprint?
  • patrickjp93 - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    That's just what they guarantee it to. It's corporate butt covering.
  • Death666Angel - Sunday, July 28, 2019 - link

    The Samsung 840 500GB SSD (first TLC drive with "the bug") I used as a system drive for 5 years had only 12TB TBW to it. And I do like to install windows every once in a while and I rotate a lot of my steam library. I did have a separate 750GB download HDD for videos and large images. But honestly, if 1.2PB writes seem small to you, what are you doing looking in the consumer review section? :D

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now