This is the performance of different components of my PC: https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/17218417

Everything seems alright except the SSD performance. The Kingston A400 240GB SSD seems to be performing way below expectations.

Am I misinterpreting the results?

If not, how can I improve the SSD performance for my PC?

The SSD has about 132GB of free space. Its total capacity is 222GB.

Image for reference:

enter image description here


  • Most of "poor performance" is due to the fact the SSD is SATA, not NVMe, but the benchmark results itself indicate the results are "average". The SSD isn't the fastest on the market, potential performance of SATA SSD is going to be impacted by the fact also. – Ramhound Nov 16 '19 at 14:23
  • Thanks @Ramhound. I have attached an image in the answer. I have a doubt about "Performing way below expectations (19th percentile)". Why do they say performance is way below expectations at one point and average in the benchmarks? – Real Noob Nov 16 '19 at 14:33
  • I said the benchmark itself said the performance was average (for the device you purchased). I said there are higher performing SATA3 SSDs that exists. However, as I mention, the best performance would be gained by getting a NVMe SSD. – Ramhound Nov 16 '19 at 15:04

The performance of your SSD agrees with tests carried out by Gadgets 360.

The article Kingston A400 SSD Review, section "Kingston A400 performance" is written:

Sequential read and write speeds came in at 555.9Mbps and 507.2Mbps respectively when using a queue depth of 32, which saturates the SSD's controller to get the most efficiency out of it. These scores are higher than Kingston's published ratings, but are more indicative of best-case scenario performance. Random read and write speeds came in at 321.9Mbps and 310.2Mbps respectively.

Without the advantage of the queue depth, sequential read and write speeds were 502.1Mbps and 490.6Mbps, whereas random speeds were 25.38Mbps and 86.67Mbps respectively. These are still great scores, and performance is way snappier than it would be with a spinning hard drive. SiSoft SANDRA's physical disk and file system tests gave us comparable results.

For doing better, you need a higher-grade SSD, preferably NVMe.

  • Thanks @harrymc. Could you please explain why does it say performance way below expectation at one place and 44% average in the benchmarks? – Real Noob Nov 16 '19 at 14:36
  • I can only guess that it's programmed wrongly for your model. I suggest to ignore it, as the performance of your SSD is reasonable. One can always improve things by throwing more money at the hardware, but why do so if the performance is good enough? – harrymc Nov 16 '19 at 14:49
  • @RealNoob To determine that, one would have to delve into the metrics and weighting the application you're using is utilizing to get the results it's showing. All SSDs are not made equally and controllers are programmed differently across vendors (for example, some SATA SSDs are able to utilize a PC's RAM for large transfers, enabling 3GB/s+ throughput with a SATA SSD - one example is Samsung's RAPID feature) – JW0914 Nov 16 '19 at 14:54
  • Are you having a performance issue? I have a laptop with an NVMe SSD and it is very fast. I put a regular SSD drive in my Desktop and it is (a) just about as fast during startup and (b) very good in daily performance. No huge operating difference. – John Nov 16 '19 at 15:02
  • Thanks @JW0914 for a more technical explanation. :) – Real Noob Nov 16 '19 at 15:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.