Show us your SSD performance 2

[whs]

Good results, good scores. CPU and mobo do not matter.

 

[pintree3]

Good results, good scores. CPU and mobo do not matter.

Thanks. Iwas wondering about it and am glad I fell into this topic by chance. Now I know.

 

[ZaLiTH]

Good results, good scores. CPU and mobo do not matter.

I'd have to disagree a bit there.. Sure, CPU plays a minor part, but different motherboards do contain different chipset that control that drive access. The drive itself is capable of much more.

Here's mine. What do the results mean? (MY CPU is an intel i5, and my MB is [FONT=&quot]ASUS. P7P55D-E LX, [/FONT]should this matter).

From this page, it seems that board has multiple SATA controllers. Just a thought, but have you tried that SSD through each of them?

 

[pintree3]

Good results, good scores. CPU and mobo do not matter.

I'd have to disagree a bit there.. Sure, CPU plays a minor part, but different motherboards do contain different chipset that control that drive access. The drive itself is capable of much more.

Here's mine. What do the results mean? (MY CPU is an intel i5, and my MB is [FONT=&quot]ASUS. P7P55D-E LX, [/FONT]should this matter).

From this page, it seems that board has multiple SATA controllers. Just a thought, but have you tried that SSD through each of them?

Thanks. My SSD is actually running from a PCI-e card purchased and attached separately: the reason being that Asus stated that their 'Marvell® PCIe SATA 6Gb/s controller' ports, being problematic, were not recommended for SSD. To my disappointment and hence bought the extra car. Knowing this would you still suggest trying others? I ask this because the card/SSD were quite problematic at first (Windows not initially recognizing it and other problems).

 

[ZaLiTH]

Thanks. My SSD is actually running from a PCI-e card purchased and attached separately: the reason being that Asus stated that their 'Marvell® PCIe SATA 6Gb/s controller' ports, being problematic, were not recommended for SSD. To my disappointment and hence bought the extra car. Knowing this would you still suggest trying others? I ask this because the card/SSD were quite problematic at first (Windows not initially recognizing it and other problems).

Sorry, I've got no experience with that Asus board or with third party SATA controllers, so I can't really help much there.. Since you're not using the onboard controllers, the numerous "slow SSD" posts that Google shows relating to the motherboard are rather useless. That said, there do seem to be a great many people asking that question...

Basically, if the speed is bugging you and you really want to get more out of it, the first step would be identifying the cause of the bottleneck. Other than that, I'm not sure what else to suggest at the moment.

 

[A Guy]

Are those numbers even slow? A Guy

 

[Britton30]

No they're not, well above high average.

 

[whs]

I would not worry too much about the data transfer timings anyhow. What really counts for the OS is the access time and that should be the same regardless of the controller that is being used.

 

[lffoar]

Here's mine from my new build....but I haven't got a clue what all the gobbledegook means :huh:

 

[kbrady1979]

Those numbers are phenomenal...........can't get much better than that!

 

[Wrend]

Here's my 1TB Samsung 480 EVO with rapid mode on. There seems to be a bit of variation between times I've run the test.



...

And here's CrystalDiskMark

 

[Britton30]

840Pro 256GB, 10% for Over Provisioning, with Rapid Mode.
Wrend it may not affect it much but these benchmarks do a lot of read/write cycles. ASSSD and Crystal never agree on mine. I think it's because one uses compressed data and one doesn't.

 

[ZaLiTH]

Seems the Samsung 840's are owning the SSD department in speed.. Out of curiosity, how much different would / could the drive controller make in these cases? Or would it be a simple case of SATA2 or SATA3?

 

[Wrend]

Those are likely relevant factors too, but with the 840s, RAPID Mode probably has a lot to do with it. That is a feature of the Samsung SSD software that allows for caching of the SSD on RAM.

 

[Britton30]

Seems the Samsung 840's are owning the SSD department in speed.. Out of curiosity, how much different would / could the drive controller make in these cases? Or would it be a simple case of SATA2 or SATA3?

I think the controller has a lot to do with the Sammie's speeds. It is a 3 core made in-house by Samsung so they control the whole thing including making their own NAND.

You'd not notice any difference from SATAII to SATAIII but benchmarks would. Either will perform the same, faster than greased lightning.
I don't know where the caching is for Rapid Mode, looking as Resource Monitor it does not show and RAM for it.

 

[Wrend]

...

I don't know where the caching is for Rapid Mode, looking as Resource Monitor it does not show and RAM for it.

In RAM somewhere; I would imagine in used, but it might be in standby or similar, I suppose. It uses up to 1GB of your RAM, depending how much it deems you have available to use, and it will also free it up as needed.

More info on Samsung RAPID Mode here (interesting read, in my opinion): http://www.samsung.com/pl/business-...14/02/Whitepaper-Samsung-SSD-Rapid-Mode-0.pdf

 

[Britton30]

I'm wrong, again, there are entries for Samsung Rapid Mode in RAM.

 

[paulpicks21]

I remember when I tried out primocache. I guess it's similar to Rapid mode on the Samsung drives.

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware...your-ssd-performance-2-a-147.html#post2625990

 

[Britton30]

I remember when I tried out primocache. I guess it's similar to Rapid mode on the Samsung drives.

http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware...your-ssd-performance-2-a-147.html#post2625990

I liked that too Paul until the trial run out.

 

[A Guy]

Is it worth it to get an 840 for a SATA2 system? It could always be moved to a newer system later, but with the way prices and advancements are going, there will be a new Top Dog then. If SATA2 will not benefit, then a lower priced/rated SSD would do just as well. A Guy