Kingston V300 vs Samsung 840 Pro

[pulp]

So I currently own a Kingston V300 120GB which is advertised at:
450MB/s Read
450MB/s Write
http://www.amazon.com/Kingston-Digital-2-5-Inch-SV300S37A-120G/dp/B00A1ZTZOG

But the thing is, my scores seem higher:

I'm considering buying a Samsung 840 Pro 256GB and it says the speeds are:
540 MB/s Read
520 MB/s Write
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-Series-2-5-Inch-MZ-7PD256BW/dp/B009NB8WRU

Should I expect to exceed the Samsung listed specifications too?

 

[RealBeast]

While the Samsung is a better drive and is larger, which also helps, you will not really notice much real world difference. Don't expect to exceed specifications with benchmarks.

 

[pulp]

My idea is to replace my 120GB with the 256GB as the OS drive. I will put games on the 120GB and use the 256 for OS+Programs/downloads and other miscellaneous things.

I want the OS drive to be real reliable and I hear that the 840 pro is just that.

I was going to go with the 240GB version of the V300 or the HyperX 3K, but I noticed that the 840 pro isn't much more now.. and since I'm paying for it why not get the better one for $50 more?

The reason I asked about exceeding the posted speeds is because the V300 exceeds them on my PC. Any idea why that's happening? Do the SSDs just vary or something?

 

[RealBeast]

It looks like your drive is close to the one reviewed HERE and they say the high scores are due to the compressible data used in the ATTO benchmarks.

 

[pulp]

Ah interesting. Here's a test with AS SSD. I've heard having 20% or more free space is a good idea on SSDs but right now mine is pretty full. I have 3GB left on it. Anyway here it is:

So would that mean that it's actually under-performing?

 

[RealBeast]

Yeah, but with only 3GB empty space that would not be unusual.

 

[pulp]

Alright I freed up space and have 25.3GB free of the 111GB capacity.

 

[pulp]

840 Pro scores:

 

[RealBeast]

Nice!