About the CrystalDiskMark tests on Guru3D : Q32T16 vs Q32T1 !?

Discussion in 'SSD and HDD storage' started by Wault, Mar 14, 2021.

  1. Wault

    Wault Member

    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Vega64 LC 1722-1125
    Hello,

    I wanted to choose between the Sabrent Rocket 4 2TiB and the Samsung 980Pro 2TiB.

    In the Sabrent test, we can see the 980Pro 1TiB is outperforming everyone in the third line /:
    https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/sabrent_rocket_4_plus_2tb_nvme_ssd_review,14.html
    3435 versus 748 => the Sabrent seems toasted in this particular test.
    In fact, the test isn't the same : It's Q32T16 for the 980Pro and Q32T1 for the Sabrent Rocket 4 !

    We can see than in the screenshots below, for all SSD with 3-thousands in this line, it's Q32T16, and for the others it's Q32T1.

    Honestly, I know I'm at fault for not seeing that immediately, and you emphasize enough int he test that this is the PCMark 8 one that is the more representative of the real world perf ; but you should really write a warning in the description line in the top of the page.
    I genuinely thought at first that Samsung had developed some specific technology that kicks-in in some particular use case.

    Another thought :
    What is baffling is that although the Sabrent seems better in almost all synthetic benchmarks, if we take the "real world file copy" test, which seems to me more what I would do with the disk, the 980Pro is better :
    https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/sabrent-rocket-4-plus-2tb-nvme-ssd-review,11.html
    https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/samsung_980_pro_1tb_nvme_ssd_review,11.html
    But, I would not know that if I didn't go read the 980Pro test because there is no comparison table for this test.
    That's a shame.

    Thank you for your time.
     

Share This Page