SanDisk Ultra Fit 256GB Review (Page 5 of 8)

Page 5 - Benchmark: Crystal Disk Mark

About Crystal Disk Mark

- Measure sequential reads/writes speed
- Measure random 512KB, 4KB, 4KB (Queue Depth=32) reads/writes speed
- Select test data (Random, 0Fill, 1Fill)

From: Developer's Page

The SanDisk Ultra Fit 256GB continued to perform in accordance to its physical size as we move into our Crystal Disk Mark sequential read and write results. However, there were quite many surprises in the remaining results. Its 512K, 4K, and 4K QD32 write performance clearly punched above its class; traditionally USB flash drives perform poorly in these areas, but the SanDisk Ultra Fit 256GB delivered beyond expectations. Although its 4K and 4K QD32 write results were a step back from its predecessor, corresponding read figures showed considerable improvement. The rest of the results were relatively modest, and they were about where I would expect them to be, once again considering its small physical size. Its sequential read and write results generally reflect what we have seen in the past two pages; again, a considerable improvement over the first-generation model. As aforementioned, the biggest surprise came in when we shift our focus to the 512K write results. The Ultra Fit 256GB came in fourth, just behind the Ultra Fit 128GB. As we move into the 4K and 4K QD32 territory, which requires high input/out operations per second (Commonly referred to as IOPS), the SanDisk Ultra Fit 256GB continued to hold its own against other tested USB flash drives in the write portion, despite a performance drop compared to the Ultra Fit 128GB. Of course, its read performance was handily outperformed by its bigger and faster counterparts, but this was to be expected.

Page Index
1. Introduction, Packaging, Specifications
2. A Closer Look, Test System
3. Benchmark: AIDA64 Disk Benchmark
4. Benchmark: ATTO Disk Benchmark
5. Benchmark: Crystal Disk Mark 3.0
6. Benchmark: HD Tach
7. Benchmark: HD Tune Pro 4.60
8. Conclusion