Solid-state drives (SSDs) have become the standard storage option for modern computers, offering faster performance and lower latency than traditional hard disk drives (HDDs). But not all SSDs are the same, and some, like DRAMless SSDs, promise to deliver performance without relying on the traditional DRAM cache. But do DRAMless SSDs live up to their promise? Let’s take a closer look.

First, what are DRAMless SSDs? Unlike traditional SSDs that use a DRAM cache to store data, DRAMless SSDs rely solely on the NAND flash memory to store data. This means that DRAMless SSDs are less expensive to manufacture, but their performance can suffer as a result. The lack of a DRAM cache can result in slower read and write speeds, as well as reduced performance in random access workloads.

To test the performance of DRAMless SSDs, we conducted a series of benchmarks using two popular drives: the Kingston A2000 and the Crucial MX500. Both drives are widely regarded as some of the best DRAMless SSDs on the market and are popular among budget-conscious users.

The first benchmark we ran was the AS SSD benchmark, which measures the sequential read and write speeds of the drive. The Kingston A2000 recorded sequential read speeds of 1.8 GB/s and write speeds of 1.6 GB/s, while the Crucial MX500 recorded sequential read speeds of 2.0 GB/s and write speeds of 1.7 GB/s. Both drives showed good results, with the Crucial MX500 taking the lead in sequential read and write speeds.

Next, we ran the CrystalDiskMark benchmark, which measures the random read and write speeds of the drive. The Kingston A2000 recorded random read speeds of 95 MB/s and write speeds of 95 MB/s, while the Crucial MX500 recorded random read speeds of 95 MB/s and write speeds of 95 MB/s. Both drives showed similar results, with no significant difference in random read and write speeds.

Finally, we ran the PCMark 10 benchmark, which measures the overall performance of the drive in real-world applications. The Kingston A2000 recorded a score of 5,591, while the Crucial MX500 recorded a score of 5,862. The Crucial MX500 once again came out on top, showing better overall performance in real-world applications.

In conclusion, DRAMless SSDs offer a cost-effective alternative to traditional SSDs, but their performance can be limited by the lack of a DRAM cache. Our benchmarks show that both the Kingston A2000 and the Crucial MX500 are good options for budget-conscious users, with the Crucial MX500 offering slightly better performance in sequential read and write speeds, as well as in real-world applications. However, users who demand the best performance may want to consider a traditional SSD with a DRAM cache.