Samsung 990 EVO Plus vs Crucial P310: Which one should you choose?

If you ever search for a mid-range Gen 4.0 NVMe SSD, Samsung 990 EVO Plus and Crucial P310 will definitely come into your sight. The prices are almost similar, and other specifications might also look the same. But, this isn’t true. There are significant differences in the specifications if we dig deeper.

The Crucial P310 is a QLC SSD, which is suitable for cutting costs, but QLC NAND has the lowest endurance of any NAND type. The 990 EVO Plus, on the other hand, uses TLC NAND flash, which offers much better performance, endurance, and overall reliability.

Both SSDs have no DRAM of their own and rely on HMB for handling mapping tables and other important internal tasks. The 6-Core Piccolo controller in the 990 EVO Plus is way powerful and efficient than the P310’s Triple-Core Phison E27T.

Overall, the Samsung 990 EVO is a better choice than the Crucial P310 thanks to its superior NAND flash and efficient controller. However, we will compare other factors in the article. So, let’s get started.

Theoretical Specifications Comparison

The Samsung 990 EVO Plus is clearly built for speed and endurance, even without DRAM. Based on the advertised specifications, its sequential read and write speeds slightly edge out the Crucial P310 across most capacities, particularly at 2TB and 4TB, where Samsung maintains 7,250/6,300 MB/s versus Crucial’s steady 7,100/6,000 MB/s. Random performance tilts even harder in Samsung’s favor. The 1TB model alone hits 850K/1,350K IOPS, leaving Crucial’s 1TB at 1,000K/1,200K behind in writes but not far off in reads. The P310’s advantage is flexibility; it supports the smaller 2230 form factor and offers a heatsink option, making it easier to drop into compact builds or laptops.

For pure desktop or workstation performance, the Samsung 990 EVO Plus is a better pick. But for small-form-factor or thermally constrained setups, the Crucial P310 makes more practical sense. The P310 can save a good amount of money, especially when you go for the high storage variants like 2TB or 4TB. The 500GB variant of P310 is definitely an advantage for anyone looking for a drive with a lesser capacity.

Benchmark Scores Comparison

All the benchmark scores are for the 2TB variants of these drives.

PCMark 10 Full Drive Benchmark

In PCMark 10’s Full System Drive test, the Crucial P310 barely edges out the Samsung 990 EVO Plus in bandwidth, posting 4,674 vs. 4,514. A difference is small enough that you’d never notice in real-world use. The overall PCMark 10 score is 4674 for the P310, compared to 4514 for the 990 EVO Plus. So, there is a little edge for the P310 here again. The latency is lower in the P310 as well. These are razor-thin margins that speak more to firmware tuning than raw performance.

For everyday workloads like gaming, office tasks, and general multitasking, both drives perform virtually identically.

3DMark Storage Test for Gamers

In the 3DMark Storage Benchmark, the Samsung 990 EVO Plus scores 4,753, slightly ahead of the Crucial P310 at 4,666, which counts to about a 1.9% bump in Samsung’s favor. Samsung also delivers slightly higher bandwidth at 818 MB/s, while Crucial trails at 810 MB/s. When it comes to latency, Samsung’s 38 µs is a touch better than Crucial’s 39 µs, meaning it’s just a bit snappier under load.

Overall, Samsung leads in both score and responsiveness, showing tighter control and slightly better efficiency, making it a good choice for gaming and 3D-related tasks. However, the P310 isn’t far behind in the scores.

CrystalDiskMark Sequential Read/Write Performance

In the sequential 1MB QD8 and QD1 tests, both drives are neck-and-neck on reads. The Samsung 990 EVO Plus pulls 7,060 MB/s versus Crucial’s 7,017 MB/s in QD8 Read, which is a minimal difference. Crucial pushes ahead at QD8 Write with 6,173 MB/s compared to Samsung’s 5,917 MB/s, but Samsung hits back at QD1 Read at 4246 MB/s compared to 4170 MB/s. The P310 wins again in the QD1 Write at 5560 MB/s compared to the 990 EVO Plus’s 5337 MB/s.

We can call this a tie because both drives win in two of the four parameters.

CrystalDiskMark Random Read/Write Performance

Looking at the 4KB performance results, the Crucial P310 holds a slight advantage in all tests. It narrowly beats the Samsung 990 EVO Plus in 4KB QD1 read, scoring 23,249 versus 23,221. The real difference shows up in write speeds: Crucial posts a far stronger 106,930 in 4KB QD1 write, compared to Samsung’s 84,468. The same pattern continues at high queue depths, with Crucial maintaining leads in both 4KB QD256 read (1,050,842 vs. 1,020,985) and write (1,397,901 vs. 1,271,189). Those margins suggest Crucial’s controller handles small random operations more efficiently, especially under heavier workloads.

For typical multitasking and small-file handling, the Crucial P310 delivers a smoother experience, while Samsung still holds value for users who prioritize consistency and sustained throughput under long sequential transfers.

File Transfer Rate

In the transfer rate tests, the Crucial P310 shows a noticeable lead in the 50GB copy test, moving data at 2,012 MB/s, compared with Samsung’s 1,541 MB/s. However, Samsung regained its reputation in read speed for the 6.5GB zip file, reaching 3,987 MB/s compared to Crucial’s 3,736 MB/s. For write speed, Samsung again holds the edge at 2,348 MB/s versus Crucial’s 2,185 MB/s, showing stronger sustained write handling despite slower copy performance.

Overall, the Crucial P310 moves big chunks of mixed data faster. Still, Samsung’s 990 EVO Plus performs better when reading and writing large contiguous files.

Power Consumption and Efficiency

Power efficiency tilts in Crucial’s favor this time. The P310 delivers 578 MB/s per watt, compared with the Samsung 990 EVO Plus at 524 MB/s per watt, demonstrating a clear efficiency advantage. Both draw the same 3W average and 5W peak, but Crucial’s idle power of 781 mW is noticeably lower than Samsung’s 1,086 mW, meaning it sips less energy when the system’s idling. This makes the P310 ideal for portable devices.

Steady State Write Performance

After SLC Write Cache exhaustion, at 1 MiB blocks and QD32, the Crucial P3 Plus stabilizes at around 337 MB/s while the 990 EVO Plus continues at 1777 MB/s. This shows a better sustained write performance from the 990 EVO Plus, mainly because of Samsung’s V8 TLC V-NAND. However, the P310 lacks at this point because of the inherently slow QLC NAND flash, which came into play after the SLC Write cache was full.

Thermals

The Crucial P310 runs way cooler than the 990 EVO Plus even under load. In Tom’s Hardware testing, it reached the maximum temperature of 52°C. The Samsung 990 EVO Plus, on the other hand, hardly reaches its throttling point even without active cooling. Again, during Tom’s Hardware testing, it reached the maximum temperature of 65°C.

TBW, DWPD, MTBF, and Warranty

This is where the QLC NAND flash shows its true colors. Although the warranty and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) are the same, there is a vast difference in the DWPD (Drive Writes Per Day) and TBW (Total Bytes Written). The 1TB variant of the P310 offers only 220 TBW compared to the 600 TBW of the 990 EVO Plus.

What does that mean?

The P310 is less reliable and handles less data over its lifetime than the 990 EVO Plus. As we discussed earlier, QLC NAND flash is less reliable and has lower endurance. In simple words, if you start using both drives at the same time with the same amount of data, the Crucial P310 will most probably fail earlier.

Technical Specifications

Again, from a controller & flash architecture viewpoint, Samsung has the upper hand: a newer process node (5 nm vs ~12 nm) and premium TLC flash vs. Crucial’s QLC. That typically suggests better endurance, possibly better sustained performance under heavy load, and potentially longer lifespan.

Crucial trades some of that premium architecture for cost savings: QLC flash is typically slower in certain scenarios (especially after cache exhaustion) and may have lower endurance. So, in the benchmarks, you might have seen good performance, but when you put the P310 under constant write load, you will see a huge drop in performance.

nterface wise, Samsung has a slight advantage with Gen 5 ×2 capability (for certain future-proofing).

Price

Conclusion: Which One Should You Choose?

In terms of performance, the P310 has a slight edge over the 990 EVO Plus. But it isn’t substantial enough to ignore the core selection criteria for a good SSD. Although both SSDs are DRAM-less, the 990 EVO Plus has better components and specifications, including V8 V-NAND TLC NAND flash. Performance-wise as well, the 990 EVO Plus isn’t that far behind, and you will hardly notice any difference if you compare them in real-world applications.

For me, the QLC in the P310 is a big issue. It has low TBW, and the SSD depends heavily on the write cache to compensate for the slow NAND flash. However, I can think about it for a laptop because of the 2230 form factor and its lower heat generation. Otherwise, it is worth paying a bit extra for the 990 EVO Plus and having peace of mind.