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
POST A COMMENT

29 Comments

View All Comments

  • RSAUser - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    As stated in the conclusion, overpriced, especially at 1TB if matching the 970 Evo Plus which has way better performance.

    High end pricing does not work with lower middle of the pack performance.
    Reply
  • sircolby45 - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    I agree...This drive is way overpriced. Does Kingston think it is actually going to sell at that price point? You are much better off with the ADATA drive or the Corsair MP510 IMO. (As well as the plethora of other similar spec'd/priced drives) Reply
  • bug77 - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

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

    Considering the 970 EVO is very close to the 970 EVO Plus in performance, I don't see that happening. Reply
  • bug77 - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    That's because you're looking at sequential speeds. SSDs are bottlenecked by their 4k random reads and there this drive does better then Samsung. Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - link

    "SSDs are bottlenecked by their 4k random reads"

    in general, I'd have agreed 5 years ago when app storage still leaned toward RDBMS, even sqlite. these days developers are content to read the whole file, just because seq is so much faster than spinning rust.
    Reply
  • patrickjp93 - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    It still holds true, and as someone who contributes to Postgres and Norio (which is 4x as fast as SQL Server), random is still king. There are a lot of bloom filters and hash functions sitting in front of it all to prevent excessive I/O, but the bottleneck is still very much the random 4K read. Reply
  • DeepLake - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    I think you have mistaken 970 with 860. This Kingston SSD will be better than 860, yes. But thats about it. 970 evo plus is way better and way more expensive, atleast where i live. HP EX950 is in the same price range as KC2000, but HP performs much much better. So in the end i agree that Kingston is very overpriced. Reply
  • inmytaxi - Friday, July 26, 2019 - link

    How do you know that high end pricing won't work with lower middle of the pack performance? Data? Reply
  • kobblestown - Monday, July 22, 2019 - link

    Why is Corsair MP510 not among the contenders? It has three times the endurance (1700TBW for the 960GB model), better (I think) performance and probably lower price. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now