Random Read Performance

Our first test of random read performance uses very short bursts of operations issued one at a time with no queuing. The drives are given enough idle time between bursts to yield an overall duty cycle of 20%, so thermal throttling is impossible. Each burst consists of a total of 32MB of 4kB random reads, from a 16GB span of the disk. The total data read is 1GB.

Burst 4kB Random Read (Queue Depth 1)

The Kingston KC2000 continues the trend of drives using Silicon Motion's NVMe controllers delivering top-notch burst random read performance, but the ADATA SX8200 Pro that uses Micron 64L TLC is still faster than the KC2000's 96L Toshiba NAND.

Our sustained random read performance is similar to the random read test from our 2015 test suite: queue depths from 1 to 32 are tested, and the average performance and power efficiency across QD1, QD2 and QD4 are reported as the primary scores. Each queue depth is tested for one minute or 32GB of data transferred, whichever is shorter. After each queue depth is tested, the drive is given up to one minute to cool off so that the higher queue depths are unlikely to be affected by accumulated heat build-up. The individual read operations are again 4kB, and cover a 64GB span of the drive.

Sustained 4kB Random Read

On the longer random read test, the Samsung 970 PRO catches up to the KC2000 but otherwise the rankings and spread of scores are similar to the burst random read results.

Sustained 4kB Random Read (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The KC2000 turns in an excellent power efficiency score for random reads, but is still outclassed by the ADATA SX8200 Pro. The KC2000 manages a slightly higher efficiency score than the WD Black SN750, which is quite a bit slower than the KC2000 on this test but also uses less power than any of the other NVMe drives in this bunch.

Several of the competing drives are able to eventually outperform the Kingston KC2000 for random reads, given a sufficiently high queue depth. The WD Black and Toshiba XG6 manage to do so while drawing much less power, so the KC2000's excellent efficiency score on this test only holds up at low queue depths.

Comparing the KC2000's random read test results against our entire database of results shows that its peak peak performance is good but not quite up to the limits of what TLC drives can deliver, and the power consumption at higher queue depths is on the high side.

Random Write Performance

Our test of random write burst performance is structured similarly to the random read burst test, but each burst is only 4MB and the total test length is 128MB. The 4kB random write operations are distributed over a 16GB span of the drive, and the operations are issued one at a time with no queuing.

Burst 4kB Random Write (Queue Depth 1)

The burst random write performance of the Kingston KC2000 is pretty good, but is overshadowed by the Phison E12-based Silicon Power drive that has a wide lead over the rest of the high-end drives thanks to a very fast SLC write cache.

As with the sustained random read test, our sustained 4kB random write test runs for up to one minute or 32GB per queue depth, covering a 64GB span of the drive and giving the drive up to 1 minute of idle time between queue depths to allow for write caches to be flushed and for the drive to cool down.

Sustained 4kB Random Write

On the longer random write test, the KC2000 falls slightly behind most top NVMe drives but still performs very well.

Sustained 4kB Random Write (Power Efficiency)
Power Efficiency in MB/s/W Average Power in W

The power efficiency of the KC2000 during random writes is top tier, but drives with the same NAND and different controller or vice versa are slightly ahead of the KC2000.

At queue depths of 4 or higher, the high-end drives offer roughly similar performance but power consumption varies significantly. Of the drives that match the power consumption of the KC2000, the ADATA SX8200 Pro is consistently a little bit faster, while the Toshiba XG6 underperforms at low QDs and surpasses the KC2000 at high queue depths.

Comparing the KC2000's random write results against the entire database shows that the power efficiency of the KC2000 is quite good, with only a handful of scores from other drives offering similar performance at slightly lower power levels.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light Sequential Performance
POST A COMMENT

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.
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • erinadreno - Wednesday, July 24, 2019 - link

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

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

    That's just what they guarantee it to. It's corporate butt covering. Reply
  • 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 Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now