|
|
Review: HyperX
|
|
|
|
In 2012 I had the opportunity to test my
first HyperX SSD, and back then I was very impressed by its performance and
also the design. After this Kingston continued to evolve the HyperX name and
made it synonymous with products that are designed for enthusiasts, gamers, and
those who want the best. Today I am taking a look at the fastest SSD, up to the
date that this review is written, that HyperX has to offer, and this is the m.2
PCIe x4 Predator.
So let's start this review by taking a look
at the packaging and its contents, before moving on to some testing.
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD
As always I will start by taking a look at
the package and the contents that are included with the HyperX Predator SSD. We'll
start with the package.
The front of the box.
Here is the back of the box.
As expected inside you will find an
outstanding job when it comes to presentation, also an Acronis CD key, a HyperX
sticker, and warranty info. Plus a small bracket adapter in case you need it.
Here is the Predator SSD in all its glory,
at this point I would be picky and say that I would have liked to see the
bracket painted black, but still, the drive looks great.
The back of the HyperX Predator SSD.
The front side of the SSD with the sticker
removed.
The Marvel 88SS9293 controller.
The NAND on the HyperX predator is MLC and
they are labelled as Kingston NAND.
Specifications of the HyperX Predator 480GB SSD
We can see that the HyperX Predator SSD starts
with a 240GB capacity, then 480GB, and goes up to 960GB. All sizes are available
in M.2 2280 and also with a PCIE Gen 2.0 x4 adapter.
You can find everything you need to about
HyperX simply by clicking this link.
CrystalDiskInfo
In
the above screenshot we can see all the available info for the HyperX Predator
480GB SSD.
Let’s head to the next page where we
take a look at our testing methods and the review PC.
Test machine
For this review I will be using a computer
with the following configuration:
Hardware:
- Motherboard: ASUS X99-A (Intel X99 chipset)
- Processor: Intel Core i7 5280K @ 4.4GHz
- RAM: RAM: Crucial Ballistix Sport 4x4GB 2400
- GFX: MSI GTX 960 2GB
- Sound: Onboard Realtek HD audio
controller - OS SSD: HyperX Fury 240GB
- PSU: Seasonic 750W
- Display: Futsiju Siemens 22”
- Operating System: Windows 10
The HyperX Predator 480GB SSD was connected
to the second PCIe slot of the ASUS X99-A motherboard, and it wasn’t seen by the
Intel Rapid Storage Technology.
The
SATA 6Gbps drivers used on our review PC were Intel Rapid Storage Technology
(RST) Version 14.5.0.1081.
Test applications
To test the performance of the HyperX
Predator 480GB SSD, I will be using the following test applications in this
review.
- HD Tune
Pro - ATTO
- Iometer
- AS SSD
Benchmark - CrystalDiskMark
- Anvil’s
Storage Utilities - PCMark
Test procedures
I will start off our testing procedures
explanation by stating that I did not run many synthetic benchmarks on the HyperX
Predator 480GB SSD. You may ask why I have run so few synthetic benchmarks.
SSD technology has moved so fast in the
last couple of years, that basic synthetic benchmarks alone are now of very
limited use, as they don't really tell us much about performance and how the
drive will behave in the real world. I have therefore decided to show some
basic benchmarks for the HyperX Predator 480GB SSD, and will complement this
with advanced benchmarks using IOMeter and AS SSD benchmark. I will also show
how the HyperX Predator 480GB SSD performs in the real world.
The reality of SSD performance
While I can easily show you which SSD is
technically the faster, when you use one of these modern SSDs as an operating
system drive it becomes very difficult to tell them apart as far as performance
is concerned.
A typical use of a small capacity SSD at
the moment is to have your operating system and applications installed onto the
SSD. The performance difference compared to a traditional HDD is enormous,
however when you start to compare SSD to SSD the difference becomes almost
impossible to detect.
Let’s look at why this is the case.
Drive A can boot to the desktop in 8.11
seconds, and drive B can boot to the desktop in 8.12 seconds, the difference in
time is milliseconds, and can one really tell the difference?
The fact is, all modern SSDs are only
ticking over when they are only running the OS and launching applications, it’s
only when you get to some of the larger capacity SSDs, with enough free space
to be able to hold the actual data that you’re going to be working with, be
that video, audio or pictures, for example, that you actually get a tangible
difference in performance. This is where the SSDs with the better sequential
performance start to pull well ahead of the SSDs which have lower sequential
read/write performance.
Small file random IOPS vs sequential performance
IOPS
This is a fairly complex subject, but I
will do my best to explain things in a manner that is easy to understand.
The term IOPS is the amount of input or
output transactions that can take place in a one second interval, so for
example, if an SSD is quoted as being able to cope with 20,000 4K random write
IOPS, then the SSD should be able to cope with 20,000 input transactions in a
period of one second. If the same SSD is said to be able to produce 20,000 4K
random read IOPS, then the same SSD should be able to produce 20,000 4K random
read output transactions in a one second interval.
Ok, now we have some figures to work with,
the next question is how many IOPS are actually required?
This will depend on your usage pattern. If
you are a typical desktop user who browses the internet, does some word
processing or perhaps some audio or video editing, and perhaps plays a few
games, then in actual fact, you don’t need to have massive 4K random read/write
performance. The actual amount of 4K random performance that is required for a
fast and smooth running system for a desktop user with a usage pattern similar
to the above will be well under 1,000 4K IOPS.
On the other hand, if the SSD is being used
for running a large and complex database server, then 4K random performance is
the absolute measurement of how fast that server will run, as this type of
application does most of its input and output transactions in the 4K domain.
So why would I need an SSD with 80,000 4K
IOPS for a desktop?
In fact you don’t need this type of
performance for a desktop, but an SSD which is capable of coping with 80,000 4K
IOPS will be faster than an SSD which can only cope with 20,000 4K IOPS.
OK, I just said if under 1,000 4K IOPS are
actually required for typical desktop usage, why is an SSD with 80,000 4K IOPS
faster than an SSD with only 20,000 4K IOPS, confused?
You may ask, if I only require 1,000 4K
IOPS surely the rest is wasted?
While you may never need 80,000 4K IOPS,
IOPS is all about latency. The reason that an SSD can cope with as much as 80,000
4K IOPS is because latency in this domain is very low. With 4K files, even if
you require to process 500 of them at the same time, you are not talking about
a huge amount of data, it has far more to do with how long it takes the SSD to
process a single file, and the amount of time required to process a single 4K
is all about how long it takes for the SSD to access or store that data before
it can move on to the next transaction.
In other words an SSD with 80,000 4K IOPS
performance will handle those 500 files faster than the SSD with 20,000 IOPS.
So how will a desktop user even notice this
faster speed if so little 4K random IOPS and data are actually used?
Multitasking is a good example. The more
tasks you run at the same time, you more you will notice the speed difference.
Sequential performance
I have always maintained that sequential
performance was every bit as important as small random file performance for a
desktop SSD. Some highly regarded people on other sites found this statement
quite funny a couple of years ago when I made it, but my, how times have
changed in the world of SSD reviewing.
To me this was always so obvious for a
desktop user. For example, let’s say you want to launch an application or game.
Both have some fairly large files to load, and also a great many small files,
but the point is, even the smaller files are sequential in nature. Now let’s
say you’re into audio or video editing. Video files tend to be huge, and the
files are written or read sequentially. Isn’t this how many users are using
their PCs these days?
Summary
So how does this shape up in the real
world? Which is better, massive 4K IOPS or massive sequential performance?
In an ideal world you want both, as an SSD
with massive random 4K IOPS and sequential performance will always be faster
than an SSD that has high sequential performance and moderate 4K random IOPS
performance, and the same applies to an SSD that has massive 4K random
performance and moderate sequential performance. The SSD which has high
performance in both patterns will always be the faster SSD.
However, you can still have an SSD that is
very fast for desktop use that has moderate random 4K performance and massive
sequential performance, the same can be said about a drive having massive
random 4K performance and moderate sequential performance, as it is about
getting the balance right if you have to compromise on one or the other.
Drive preparation for running the tests
All the SSDs used in this article were in a
clean and fresh state when the testing period started. From then on, each drive
had to rely on its own NAND cleaning effectiveness for the remainder of the
tests.
- Both our spinning HDD drives were
defragged before the start of each test.
- All SSD and HDD used in this article had
their partitions aligned to the Windows 7 x64 defaults.
Where I use graphs in this article to
display results, I will use the following colours to make it easier, for our
readers to see which drive we are reviewing.
HyperX
Predator 480GB SSD
Comparison
SDD
Now let's head to the next page, where I
look at some basic benchmarks...
Reading Benchmarks
HD Tune
HD
Tune Test – Sequential reading test
As it was expected the HyperX Predator is
by far that fastest SSD that I have tested up to this point.
ATTO disk benchmark
ATTO has become a standard tool for
measuring the data throughput of HDDs and SSDs. It measures the reading and
writing performance, using different file sizes and block sizes.
The Predator SSD had no issues reaching its
maximum rated read speed of 1400MB/Sec and also 1000MB/Sec for writing speed. Everything
so far is looking excellent.
CrystalDiskMark 3.0
CrystalDiskMark is quite a handy benchmarking
application, as it focuses on the file sizes that can cause problems for a
system drive.
In this test the HyperX Predator SSD gives an
excellent result.
The two graphs below will give a more
detailed view of how the HyperX Predator SSD compares with other SSDs that I
have tested.
Here I present the graph for the read speed
tests. You can compare the HyperX Predator SSD performance with other drives I
have tested.
Finally, the results for the HyperX
Predator SSD for write speed, and again you can compare it with other drives.
AS SSD Benchmark
AS SSD benchmark is a benchmarking tool
specifically designed to test SSDs. The application tests sequential reading
and writing performance, 4K random reading and writing performance.
AS SSD benchmark also tests 4K threaded
performance. This is very exciting, as this test is the first available test
that I am aware of, that simulates how a PC operating system actually works. A
modern PC and OS, such as Windows Vista/7 does not just run a single thread at
a time, it runs many threads. The AS SSD benchmark "4K 64Thrd" tests
run 64 threads simultaneously throughout the test. If this result is good, then
you can be pretty sure the drive will perform extremely well as a system drive.
After the tests complete, AS SSD benchmark
derives a total score for the drive being tested. This is based on all aspects
of the test results, and gives an indication of how the drive is performing
overall.
Now let’s look at the results for the HyperX
Predator SSD in the form of a screenshot. All our other comparison drives’
results are presented in the form of a graph.
Again the HyperX Predator shows the best
result that I have seen so far.
Let's head to the next page and run some
tests using PCMark 8.....
PC Mark 8 - HDD Suite
We have built quite a close relationship
with FutureMark software, the authors of the PCMark PC benchmarking software
that we use in our tests. I decided I would use PCMark Vantage as stopgap
measure until the more up-to-date PCMark 8 benchmarking suite became available.
I'm pleased to say that PCMark 8 is now available, and it gives me great
pleasure to introduce you all to the results obtained by this new 'real world'
benchmarking suite.
I will describe the basic way that each
test is carried out, above the graph for each test.
PC Mark 8 HDD suite results
Here
is a screenshot displaying the results for the HyperX Predator 480GB SSD.
As we can see in the above graph the HyperX
predator gave an outstanding result.
The
result for the After Effects test.
The
result for the InDesign test.
The
result for Photoshop heavy test.
The
result for the Illustrator test.
The
result for the Photoshop light test.
The
result for Battlefield 3.
The
result for World of Warcraft.
The
result for the Word test.
The
result for the Excel test.
The
result for the PowerPoint test.
Summary:
In almost every single PCMark 8 test that I
ran the HyperX Predator was able to top the charts with outstanding results overall.
Let's head to the next page for our
IOMeter test results.....
I/O Performance
There is little point of having an SSD
drive that has blazing sustained reading and writing speeds, if the drive can't
handle reading and writing of small random files. If you intend to use your new
SSD drive to store and run your operating system, then the drive must be able
to cope with the many small random files that Windows will write to the drive continually.
So I feel it is very important to test how many of these random files that a
drive can handle in one second. I believe that anything over 1,000 I/O’s per
second would be enough for most users running a consumer grade mainstream PC,
and should provide a smooth running system. But obviously, the more I/O's that
a drive can handle, the faster the drive will feel and leave more headroom for
those huge multitasking sessions that users sometimes engage in.
The things that I will look at are the
total I/O per second and total MB/s.
Partition alignment and sector boundaries
Windows 7 and Vista will automatically
align a partition to 4k boundaries during partition creation, Windows XP won’t.
It is imperative that an SSDs partition is aligned. Windows XP is also
restricted to sector boundaries, while Windows 7 will use 4k boundaries if it
can. The HyperX Predator 480GB SSD is 4k boundary aware, and will use these
boundaries if possible. Of course it will also remap LBAs for compatibility
with the sector boundaries so that the drive can be used with Windows XP.
IOMeter allows us to set the sector
boundaries for conducting the tests, and I have therefore set the sector
boundaries at 4K, which means the IOMeter tests are valid for Windows 7 and
Windows Vista users. XP users will not be able to obtain such results.
I will provide a screenshot of the tests on
the review drive for those of you who like to see the actual test result. All
the comparison drive results are represented in the form of graphs.
If any of you would like to see a
screenshot from any IOMeter test on a particular drive, please feel free to
request one, and I’ll post the screenshot in the forum thread.
All the IOMeter tests create a 10GB data
set on the target drive, and each test is run for a duration of 3 minutes.
IOMeter 4K random write test with repeating data.
The first test involves creating continual
4KB random files on the target drive with IOMeter. I use a 4KB file size, as it
is believed that Windows will create and modify many of this size of file
constantly in the background during a typical Windows session. It is said that
most 4K random writes take place at a queue depth of only one.
Queue depth 1
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (Queue depth 1)
The result is excellent.
Queue depth 4
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (Queue depth 4)
At slightly higher queue depths the results
continue to be excellent.
Queue depth 32
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (Queue depth 32)
And even at a queue depth of 32 the results
continue to be excellent.
4K random write queue depth profile
For this
test I used various queue depths from 1 – 32 to give you an idea how this SSD
performs at different queue depths. For a normal desktop user, with lightweight
multitasking, the queue depth will rarely rise above 2. For heavy multitasking,
the queue depth is unlikely to rise above a value of 8.
The overall performance of the HyperX
Predator PCIe SSD is excellent and the fastest consumer drive that I have
tested.
IOMeter 4K random read test.
If there are many 4k files created, then
that must also mean that many 4k files need to be read. This test measures 4k
reading performance.
Queue depth 1
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (Queue depth 1)
An excellent result to begin with.
Queue depth 4
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (Queue depth 4)
Once again the performance of the HyperX
Predator is excellent.
Queue depth 32
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (Queue depth 32)
Not much more to say, other than, this is
again an excellent result.
4K random read queue depth profile.
This test
shows how the review drive scales with increasing queue depths.
The read performance of the HyperX Predator
is very close to excellent but a few drives are more consistent at lower queue
depths.
IOMeter 512KB write test with repeating data.
Sequential writing performance is also very
important, and in this test I will be measuring the sequential writing
performance of the drive.
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD - 512K Sequential write with repeating data
As expected the HyperX Predator continues
to shine.
IOMeter 512KB read test.
This test measures 512k sequential reading
performance.
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD – 512K sequential reading test
You will probably need three SSDs in RAID-0
to achieve +1500MB/Sec.
IOMeter Workstation simulation (outstanding I/Os = 64).
When running applications you will find
that there is a mixture of small random files and larger sequential files,
being created, and read. Not only that, it isn’t just one file at a time. In
this test I measure a simulated workstation pattern, with a queue depth of 64
(threaded).
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD – Workstation simulation
The final result is again excellent.
Summary
It’s no surprise that the HyperX Predator
is the fastest drive that I have tested, and if it had been a little better in the
read test it would have been an outstanding drive.
Now let’s head to the next page where we
will look at how the HyperX Predator 480GB SSD performs using Anvil's Storage
utilities....
Anvil’s Storage Utilities
As well as performing SSD endurance tests.
Anvil’s Storage Utilities has a very nice SSD benchmarking application. The SSD
benchmark tests many different aspects of SSD performance, including 4K random
at different queue depths, and also sequential performance, but more importantly
than this, all using real test data.
Another very nice feature of Anvil’s SSD
benchmark is the fact that you can change the compression levels of the test
data. The compression levels of the data sets used for the tests can be varied
from 0% compression right up to 100% compressed data, and there are even a few
data profiles already included, such as database (8%) compression, and also an
application profile (46%) compression, which is designed to simulate real
application data being read and written to the SSD.
Anvil’s Storage Utilities is still in beta
at the moment, but the application is currently solid enough to use in this
article, and I have already verified the results obtained using an SATA
analyser.
I will include a screenshot of the review
drive, and all comparison results will be presented in the form of graphs. If
you would like to see screenshots of the test results obtained on the other SSDs
in this article, you can do so by following the link here.
I will also be testing three different
compression profiles, which are as follows.
- 0 fill (100% compressible data)
- Application simulation profile (46%
compressed) - 100% (non compressible data)
So let’s begin the tests.
0 fill
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (0 fill)
Results
are ranked by highest total score.
As we have seen in the past the Marvell Controller
does not like compressible data, but even here the HyperX Predator is at the
top of the chart.
Application profile
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (application profile)
Results are ranked by highest total score.
No surprises, the HyperX Predator is again
at the top of the chart.
100% incompressible
HyperX Predator 480GB SSD (100% incompressible)
Results are based on the highest total score.
With incompressible data the HyperX
Predator is by far the fastest drive that I have tested.
Summary
The HyperX Predator SSD delivers a top
performance overall, and I would have to say that the performance of the drive
is excellent.
Now let's head to the next page for some
real world tests....
It has become clear that simply conducting
endless benchmarks on SSD drives is pointless. Real users may run a few
benchmarks when they first fit their SSD drive, but most users just want a
drive that performs well in the real world. They want their drive to work
"out of the box" and work fast and smoothly.
Most of the latest SSD drives can deliver
very fast sustained reading and writing speeds, but these alone tell you very
little about how the drive will perform in the real world.
If you intend to use your SSD as your
primary system drive, with an operating system and applications installed and
running from the drive, real world performance becomes much more important than
just fast sequential read and write speeds, in this case I felt that it was
time to move into a different method of testing.
From now on I will only use the log files
from the Event Viewer to measure the start-up and shutdown of the system, and
also use filecopy to measure all my copy tests from a RAM disk to the selected
storage drive that I will be testing. For these tests I will also enable all
power savings features that are available, since I believe that this is the way
that the majority of the users will have them set on their PC.
Real
world copy tests
I will now conduct some real world copy tests
so that you can have a much better view of how the drive will perform. In these
simple tests I try to simulate what a real user does with their drives. I will
be copying some mp3 files, various picture and MKV files, and finishing by
installing MS Office 2007.
As I said earlier from now on all my test
files will be stored in a RAM disk and copied/pasted to the destination drive
using filecopy. The filecopy utility will be used from now on for all my tests,
and I’ll be using it this way to measure the time that it takes to copy the
files.
Before I move on to the test, I want to
give you an idea on how fast your RAM is. Below you can find the results.
As
we can clearly see speed isn’t going to be an issue in these tests.
Read write tests – 259 MP3 song files (1.36GB total)
I will start this set of tests by copying
259 MP3 files from the RAM disk to the destination SSD and also from the SSD to
the RAM disk.
An outstanding result.
Read write tests – 3,377 JPEG picture files (2.56GB total)
Continuing my set of tests, and this time I
will be copying 2.54GB of pictures that are stored in the RAM disk to the
currently testing SSD and vice versa.
The read result is again outstanding, but
the write result isn’t as high as I would have hoped for.
Read write tests – 1 MKV and 1 SRT file (3.46GB)
Copying a movie is very common task for all
of us, and in this test there are two files that will be copied from the RAM
disk to the SSD and again from the SSD to the RAM disk.
Again both results are outstanding.
Read write tests – ISO (7927MB)
For this test, I copied ISO of the 'Iron
Man' movie from the RAMDisk to the SSD and vice versa.
Again in this ISO test the HyperX Predator
continues to deliver outstanding results.
Read write tests – Small files (533MB)
I have decided to adapt the very small
files test that I am using as part of my USB3 flash tests, so this time I will
be also copying all the files from the RAM disk to the SSD, and again from the
SSD to the RAM disk.
Here we see that the HyperX Predator isn’t
that impressive with small files, and this test verifies this.
Windows start-up based on the Boot Racer 5.00
Start-up time
On the next screen shot you can compare the
current tested SSD and compare it to other drives that I have tested. Below I
present the results.
The boot time is clearly impressive, 23
seconds to boot into the OS.
Installing applications
Installing applications is possibly
something you don't do that often. But should you replace your system disk,
then you will most likely have to re-install your applications. Most of the SSD
drives I have tested up until now are quite slow at installing applications,
most likely because their I/O performance was quite limited.
For these tests, we picked some popular
applications and copied the entire contents of the CD or DVD media to the RAM disk.
We did this to make sure that the reading speed of our CD/DVD reader would not
hamper the performance of the target drive.
We then installed these applications onto
our comparison HDD drives, which were all running mirror image installations of
our Windows 10 64-bit installation, and timed the amount of time taken to
install the application with a stopwatch on each of the drives.
MS Office 2007 Enterprise (full install)
Now let’s see
how the HyperX Predator 480GB SSD performs with the installation of MS Office
2007 Enterprise Edition.
The procedure
followed was very simple. I copied all the files from the CD to the RAM disk and
used the virtual drive as a source for the installation files.
101 seconds is the best result that I have
seen so far.
Speed degradation after heavy testing
On this page I will measure how the SSD
performs after heavy testing and usage.
I will run an AS SSD benchmark test when
the OS is freshly installed so that we can get a good view of how the drive
performs with the OS. After that I will fill the drive up to 50% of its
capacity, use the drive for a few days, and then re-run the AS SSD benchmark.
The same procedure will be followed once again, but this time the drive will be
filled close to 90% or higher of its capacity. To finish this test, I will
simply delete all the extra data and leave the PC idle for a few hours so that
the controller has the time to perform any necessary cleaning, then see how the
drive performs.
In this picture you can see the test files
that I will be copying to fill the drive with data, as you can see files vary
from 8GB ISOs to very small text files.
In the picture below you will find all the
applications that were installed for this test using Ninite, and I have also installed Microsoft
Office 2007.
Now let’s start our tests.
Starting with the fresh install of Windows 10,
and running AS SSD to get an idea of how the HyperX Predator performs, we can
see that the score is close to the one that I got when the drive was connected
as a spare. This result is very good especially as I always have all power saving
features enabled for this test.
Even with little space the HyperX Predator
SSD gives a very impressive result, however I would advise you not to have the
drive working with this little space.
This time the drive is half empty, and the
result is excellent.
With all the extra files deleted, and
allowing it to run idle for a few minutes, the result is again excellent.
Testing the Predattor on an older system
A quick test on the HyperX Predator PCIe
SSD on my old PC that has an Intel i5-750 CPU, a Gigabyte P55A-UD4 motherboard,
2x4GB of HyperX DDR3 RAM, an ATI 6670 GPU and a Corsair CX430 PSU.
Here
is a quick list on the test system.
We can see that the HyperX Predator shows
lower numbers in general but you need to remember that the drive was installed
in a system that was built back in 2009, so the fact that the predator PCIe SSD
can work in such an old system is a very pleasant surprise. Boot times were also
very good, and with a clean install the drive needed less than 20 seconds to
boot into the OS.
This concludes our review. To read the final
thoughts and conclusion, click the link below....
The cons:
I could say that in real world test the
write performance with smaller files needs some improvement.
The pros:
As with most HyperX products one of the
positives I start with is the packaging (the way that is presented and what is
included inside). This time is no exception to this rule as from the moment
that you open the box you are impressed. The build quality of the PCIe SSD is
simply outstanding, and the black PCB is another plus, since most motherboards
are black you will not have to worry about colour matching. The three year
warranty is okay but I would have liked to have seen a longer warranty on this
drive.
The overall performance of the HyperX
Predator is excellent, and not only in synthetic benchmarks, but also in real
world use. The drive is very fast, and most people will notice the increase in
speed from an SATA SSD to the Predator PCIe SSD.
Another plus is the fact that this drive
can be used on much older systems, and an example of this is that I was able to
install Windows 7 on my old intel i5-750, with a Gigabyte P55A-UD4 motherboard,
and had zero issues running the drive. Okay, some numbers in the Anvil's test
were lower than the ones that I had on my X99 system but still the improvement
from SATA2 to this PCIe SSD is huge and will give life to your old system. Plus
you can then move the drive to a new system if you upgrade.
To sum up, this is what I would say:
The HyperX Predator is an excellent
drive that offers a huge speed improvement over SATA drives. It has excellent
build quality, but most importantly in daily use it will give you a welcoming breath
of fresh air, even if you've been using an SATA SSD for a long time.
Therefore, I give the 'Excellent' award to
the HyperX Predator PCIe SSD.
Thanks to:
|
|
EFD |
|
|
Alex Schepeljanski for |
|
|
|
|
|
FutureMark |
|
|
Quarch |
You may comment on this review here, you
can also post your benchmarks in our forum.
