Show us your SSD performance 2

mjf said:

Everything is through the roof but the read access time appears ok but not that great. I wonder what is going on here.

If READ/WRITES are high, but access times are only moderate/high, maybe AS-SSD is reading access time from the SSD itself, but also getting READ/WRITEs stats from data moving in the RAM image of the drive and thinking it's the SSD doing it all instead of the RAM. That might explain the discrepancy betw access times and Read/Write speeds.... just a guess.

gldndragn said:

whs said:

Would be nice if one could read them.

Click on the image, wait for the new popup, click again.....brings up full size image. I know it is a bit hard to read, due to the dark theme, but it is readable.:)

I know all that. But if you have eyes with 40% vision, you need contrast.

Crucial M500 @ $140 for a 240GB is a good deal (see promo code)

Newegg.com - Crucial M500 240GB SATA mSATA Internal Solid State Drive CT240M500SSD3

I was just testing this PrimoCache out, it certainly gives some impressive numbers.

The numbers are impressive but are you testing the RAM rather than the SSD? Does the caching give a noticeable improvement in typical PC activities when using the SSD? For example if you copy a large file on the SSD do you notice those blistering sequential R/W speeds?

mjf said:

The numbers are impressive but are you testing the RAM rather than the SSD? Does the caching give a noticeable improvement in typical PC activities when using the SSD? For example if you copy a large file on the SSD do you notice those blistering sequential R/W speeds?

A good point and something that I have just tested out. It certainly does not equate to the figures in the benchmark but it appears there is some difference.
I tested it out using the BF4 file and copied it to desktop, once with the cache enabled and once without, I gave it enough time in both instances to level out to a stable rate. The difference was 52MB/s in favor of the cache.

That's a noticable difference - nearly 30%.

whs said:

That's a noticable difference - nearly 30%.

Yes, also the speed appears to increase with the amount of RAM you allocate to the cache. The original test I did was with 4GB allocated, with 12GB allocated it improved some more.

I think I need to do further testing to record the actual time taken for all 3 runs to give firm evidence that it is a good improvement.

This is for the rich who have acres of RAM,