Show us your SSD performance 2

[M1GU31]

Example of how durable a intel ssd is when damaged Who's up for some basketball or football with a ssd

 

[tw33k]

New M4

 

[whs]

Interesting. That is clearly faster than my 60GB M4.

 

[essenbe]

The read speeds are the same on the 64GB and the 128GB, The write speeds are faster on the 128 than the 64.

 

[Hopalong X]

April 11, 2012

Crucial m4 FW "000F" update info I posted here.> http://www.sevenforums.com/news/224076-crucial-m4-ssd-fw-update-000f.html#post1877988

 

[mjf]

I just upgraded from 0309 to 000F hoping my AS-SSD 4k-64 speed would improve. It went from this

to this

The poor 4K-64 results remain but the Write access went from .2ms to .37ms!!!!!!!!!

When I had an online chat session with Crucial they said for SSD technical matters I had to contact a US or Canadian telephone number. No email.
Good on you Crucial. You've seen the last cent of my money.

 

[pparks1]

^ rerun the test 10 more times, you likely won't get the same results twice. I think you are putting too much faith into the benchmarks.

 

[windude99]

^ rerun the test 10 more times, you likely won't get the same results twice. I think you are putting too much faith into the benchmarks.

Wel said I usually don't trust anything except WEI.

 

[mjf]

^ rerun the test 10 more times, you likely won't get the same results twice. I think you are putting too much faith into the benchmarks.

I wouldn't expect to get exactly the same results. Here is an indication of the variance.
I ran the test 10 times
Acc Read: 0.091 - 0.110ms
Acc Write: 0.365 - 0.377ms

I have previously with V0309 firmware ran the test multiple times and always got Acc Write around 0.2 ms.

AS-SSD seems to be an often used benchmark. Either its Acc Write benchmark means little or the new firmware has slowed the SSD.

Note that Crucial state you should NOT attempt to rollback the firmware so once you upgrade there is no going back. I still think their technical customer service stinks for anyone outside of North America.

 

[windude99]

^ rerun the test 10 more times, you likely won't get the same results twice. I think you are putting too much faith into the benchmarks.

I wouldn't expect to get exactly the same results. Here is an indication of the variance.
I ran the test 10 times
Acc Read: 0.091 - 0.110ms
Acc Write: 0.365 - 0.377ms

I have previously with V0309 firmware ran the test multiple times and always got Acc Write around 0.2 ms.

AS-SSD seems to be an often used benchmark. Either its Acc Write benchmark means little or the new firmware has slowed the SSD.

Note that Crucial state you should NOT attempt to rollback the firmware. I still think their technical customer service stinks for anyone outside of North America.

Have you tried running WEI to see if the ssd score changed?

 

[mjf]

I have to say that I don't put a lot of faith in the aggregate WEI. I did run the "winsat disk" on the 0309 firmware but unfortunately didn't save the results.

I am led to believe that access time is a key metric for SSDs and hope AS-SSD hasn't got this one wrong.

 

[windude99]

I have to say that I don't put a lot of faith in the aggregate WEI. I did run the "winsat disk" on the 0309 firmware but unfortunately didn't save the results.

I am led to believe that access time is a key metric for SSDs and hope AS-SSD hasn't got this one wrong.

I ran that benchmark and I got about the same Acc results as you. Honestly, I would just enjoy the ssd Keep the firmware up to date, so you will experience optimum stability and most of the time, performance. Who knows, this version of AS-SSD benchmark may not work as well with the firmware. Enjoy your ssd

 

[pparks1]

But the difference between 0.2ms and 0.365 is not going to be very noticeable from a usage experience. A mechanical hard drive is going to run 12-15ms.

I know that benchmarks are used to spot problems and prove performance, but you may just be focusing too much on these numbers. Unless it was something like 5-10ms, I wouldn't lift a finger to figure out why. Let me test my results and I will post results.

Edit, here is what I get from my Intel 320 series in my laptop

 

[mjf]

I'm a bit of a perfectionist which has its drawbacks. You're probably right that I wouldn't actually perceive a performance impact. Thanks for your inputs.

 

[pparks1]

^ We are all enthusiasts, so I can understand your concerns. When I first joined this forum, I was trying to figure out why a Seagate 7200.12 1TB hard drive was registering 25ms access times on my rig. Never could figure it out. I changed the OS, cables, drivers, etc.....and the problem persisted. I put that 7200.12 into my Linux box and it runs perfect at 12ms. I got a Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB for my new machine and it runs at 12ms like it should.

But I will be honest, aside from the benchmark, I could never prove with a stopwatch that anything changed when I went from the Seagate 7200.12 to the Western Digital Caviar Black. I spent $100 simply to lower my benchmark number in the end. Of course, it did give my Linux machine a new 1TB hard drive...so all was not lost.

 

[Nitro58]

This was using the free HD Tune. I just added this SSD, and I love it.

 

[mjf]

Here's the HDTune for the same Crucial M4 128GB I've been complaining about


Benchmarks don't you just love them.

 

[windude99]

Here's the HDTune for the same Crucial M4 128GB I've been complaining about
View attachment 207116

Benchmarks don't you just love them.

So as-ssd was wrong. Glad to know your ssd is fine

 

[tw33k]

It doesn't necessarily mean ASSSD was wrong. You could run it a dozen times and get a dozen slightly different results. I wouldn't trust HDTune for SSD results. It's meant for HDDs

I'm skipping 000F (unless I experience problems)

 

[mjf]

It doesn't necessarily mean ASSSD was wrong. You could run it a dozen times and get a dozen slightly different results. I wouldn't trust HDTune for SSD results. It's meant for HDDs

I'm skipping 000F (unless I experience problems)

My comment "Benchmarks don't you love them" may have been a bit obscure.
I don't think HD Tune is that good for SSDs, also under options you need to specify block size which will influence results.
I am questioning whether some benchmarks represent a controlled test. There may be many system factors influencing the result. My HD Tune result was better than the previous poster yet they were very happy with their performance improvement.

I would agree not to upgrade to firmware 000F unless you really need to. My decision to try it was based on a AS-SSD 4k-64 benchmark result!!!