Synthetic benchmarks that spit out performance numbers for contrived workloads do not necessarily reflect real-life performance. To represent more realistic scenarios, we turn to PCMark 7. While PCMark 7 isn’t exactly a real-world suite, it is trace-based and does in fact reflect typical performance you would see in everyday operation.
Importing pictures to Windows Photo gallery means writing quite a bit of data. Appropriately, FAT32 isn’t the best foundation for this workload.
The overall score makes it clear that the differences in the real-world is much smaller than some of the more synthetic measures might suggest, regardless of whether you're comparing file systems or SSD architectures. However, FAT32 really is a bad choice on the Samsung 830, as seen in this example.
- What's A File System? Does It Matter?
- File Systems: FAT32, NTFS, exFAT, and HFS+
- Test SSDs: Samsung 830 And Zalman F1 Series
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- AS SSD: Random And Sequential Throughput
- AS SSD: Access Time, Copy Benchmark, And Overall Score
- CrystalDiskMark: Random And Sequential Throughput
- Benchmark Results: Iometer 4 KB Random And Streaming Read/Write
- Benchmark Results: Iometer Workload Tests
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Stick To NTFS On Windows