Page 55 - PCWorld (September 2019)

AS SSD 2.0 4K Performance

(10GB/MBps)
1,172
4K Write
(64 threads) 1,306
2,114

1,097
4K Read 1,367
(64 threads)
1,743

139
4K Write 141
101

34
4K Read 32
29 Kingston A2000 Kingston KC2000 Samsung 970 Pro
LONGER BARS INDICATE BET TER PERFORMANCE

AS SSD didn’t rate the A2000 as highly as CrystalDiskMark 6 did, but while those numbers look bad for
the drive, in real life you’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

initial cloning, but by and large I’ll give the enough for most users, and it’s very affordable—

drive a pass because of the relative rarity of the the best deal I’m aware of. That may
phenomenon. change, but this is a very competent M.2

The A2000 is indeed slower than much of NVMe SSD from Kingston at a very, very nice
the competition, but not enough slower to price.
worry about. Running the Windows 10 OS off

of it instead of the Samsung 970 Pro I Kingston A2000
normally use, I really couldn’t tell the M.2 NVMe SSD (1TB)

difference. This is NVMe we’re talking about
here, and the A2000 features the usual stellar PROS
• Good everyday performance.
0.02-millisecond seek times. • Amazingly affordable.

CONS
BOTTOM LINE • Long writes slow to 500MBps.
BOTTOM LINE
Kingston recommends its slightly pricier Kingston’s A2000 is a real bargain. It’s plenty fast
KC2000 for more data-intensive applications, enough for the average user, and what little you lose
in performance you’ll likely never notice.
and it is a bit faster, especially during long
$99
writes. But honestly, the A2000 is plenty fast

SEPTEMBER 2019 PCWorld 55