Kingston A2000 1TB NVMe SSD Review

1

Kingston A2000 1TB Performance Testing

We test using both the default smaller test size as well as larger test sets on our benchmarks. This allows us to see the difference between lighter and heavier workloads.

CrystalDiskMark x64

CrystalDiskMark is used as a basic starting point for benchmarks as it is something commonly run by end-users as a sanity check.

Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 1GB
Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 1GB
Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 1GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 1GB Chart

The Kingston A2000 very nearly matches its rated 2200 MB/s read and 2000 MB/s write speeds, with results coming in close enough for me to give it a pass. Given the specs are on the lower-end of PCIe 3.0 drives it is no surprise the A2000 finds itself near the bottom of our charts, but judged in isolation there is nothing wrong with the results on the A2000.

Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 8GB
Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 8GB
Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 8GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB CrystalDiskMark 8GB Chart

On the larger CrystalDiskMark test, write performance slips up a bit and drops to 1400 MB/s. The Intel 665p with its QLC NAND manages a better write performance here, which is disappointing for the A2000.

ATTO Disk Benchmark

The ATTO Disk Benchmark has been a staple of drive sequential performance testing for years. ATTO was tested at both 256MB and 8GB file sizes.

Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 256MB
Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 256MB
Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 256MB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 256MB Chart

ATTO results are not particularly good. For portions of the run performance rides relatively close to the rated sequential performance, but several of the tests show significant variability in performance. Unfortunately for the A2000 this includes the 32MB datapoint that my results chart is drawn from, causing it to display particularly poor write performance on my graph.

Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 8GB
Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 8GB
Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 8GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB ATTO 8GB Chart

The performance instability continues on the larger ATTO 8GB test set, with even more extreme swings in performance.

Anvil’s Storage Utilities

Anvil’s Storage Utilities is a comprehensive benchmark that gives us a very in-depth look at the performance of drives tested. This benchmark was run with both a 1GB and 8GB test size.

Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 1GB
Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 1GB
Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 1GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 1GB Chart

Compared to ATTO, the Kingston A2000 1TB performance in Anvil is perfectly normal. The A2000 is still down near the bottom of our chart, but there is nothing of true concern about these results and the drive is performing as expected given its specifications.

Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 8GB
Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 8GB
Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 8GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB Anvil 8GB Chart

As with before, the larger test set takes a bit of a toll on the A2000 particularly with regards to the write score. While this result is not particularly great, it still avoids the most extreme performance cratering experienced by the likes of the PNY CS2130.

AS SSD Benchmark

AS SSD Benchmark is another good benchmark for testing SSDs. We run all three tests for our series. Like other utilities, it was run with both the default 1GB as well as a larger 10GB test set.

Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 1GB
Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 1GB
Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 1GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 1GB Chart

In AS SSD, the Kingston A2000 1TB turns in its best overall performance yet if you judge by the position on the chart. Write speed still continues to be the Achilles heel of this drive, turning in highly variable sequential performance numbers from run to run.

Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 10GB
Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 10GB
Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 10GB Chart
Kingston A2000 1TB ASSSD 10GB Chart

Almost every drive drops in AS SSD’s larger test and the Kingston A2000 is no different. Sequential performance actually improves over the smaller test, but the highly threaded random workloads take a huge hit resulting in a much lower overall score.

SPECworkstation, thermals, and our conclusion are up next.

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.