CrystalDiskMark
| CrystalDiskMark sequential read speed | ||
|---|---|---|
| MB/s, higher is better | ||
| Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB | Samsung HD103UJ 1TB | Corsair X128 SSD 128GB |
| 200.9 | 108.1 | 251.3 |
| CrystalDiskMark sequential write speed | ||
|---|---|---|
| MB/s, higher is better | ||
| Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB | Samsung HD103UJ 1TB | Corsair X128 SSD 128GB |
| 93.11 | 98.63 | 146.9 |
Crucial quotes best-case speeds of 200MB/s read and 150MB/s write. Both are lower than the 250MB/s and 190MB/s on the 128GB drive and it shows in CrystalDiskMark.
The sequential write speed, in particular, is significantly slower than what's quoted - which is likely to be the burst speed - to the extent that a 1TB mechanical drive comes out looking better.
| CrystalDiskMark random read speed (512K) | ||
|---|---|---|
| MB/s, higher is better | ||
| Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB | Samsung HD103UJ 1TB | Corsair X128 SSD 128GB |
| 153.7 | 44.61 | 182.6 |
| CrystalDiskMark random write speed (512K) | ||
|---|---|---|
| MB/s, higher is better | ||
| Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB | Samsung HD103UJ 1TB | Corsair X128 SSD 128GB |
| 89.96 | 75.4 | 144.9 |
The test can be made more difficult by random operations. Here, the 64GB Crucial beats out the mechanical drive but remains significantly slower at writing.
| CrystalDiskMark random read speed (4K) | ||
|---|---|---|
| MB/s, higher is better | ||
| Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB | Samsung HD103UJ 1TB | Corsair X128 SSD 128GB |
| 27.63 | 0.62 | 29.67 |
| CrystalDiskMark random write speed (4K) | ||
|---|---|---|
| MB/s, higher is better | ||
| Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB | Samsung HD103UJ 1TB | Corsair X128 SSD 128GB |
| 11.2 | 1.95 | 17.89 |
Really cranking up the workload, random 4K read/writes are tortuous. Significantly better than the mechanical hard drive, performance is relatively good for what amounts to a budget SSD.
