Show us your SSD performance 2

[LeftC]

Here is my 512GB Samsung 840 Pro

Did you run the test with C1E disabled?

Hi OpTicaL

I really do not know if C1E was disabled or not. I don't know how to do this. Why do you ask if it was disabled?

It seems that my test scores are lower than other 840 Pros that I've seen. If you know how to boost it up, I'm all ears.

LeftC

EDIT: Do you mean ReadyBoost, by chance? It is disabled on this laptop.

 

[GeneO]

C1E is a power savings mode that can affect the write speeds significantly. You should be able to disable it in your BIOS. Your Dell might not have that option.

 

[Parman]

I didn't get to setup the RAID like i wanted to but with one SSD i still see nice performance.

 

[whs]

For the OS, Raid would not buy you much anyhow. The access time does not change and that is what gives the performance. The data transfer speed is pretty irrelevant for the OS.

 

[Bungee18]

Hi guys,
Did this benchmark for the first time.
Do these numbers make sense?
I was running two of these Kingston Hyperx 3k in raid 0, but one died and then I learned that AMD does not support TRIM in RAID. So I'm running them stand alone now that I know better.
These scores are for the new drive I received as RMA for the one that died.
I'm using AMD SATA drivers (AHCI mode). Would MS AHCI make any difference?
Thank you,
J

 

[Parman]

Good to know. I have to say i love having an SSD. Now i have to decide if what i should do with the other one.

 

[whs]

Hi guys,
Did this benchmark for the first time.
Do these numbers make sense?
I was running two of these Kingston Hyperx 3k in raid 0, but one died and then I learned that AMD does not support TRIM in RAID. So I'm running them stand alone now that I know better.
These scores are for the new drive I received as RMA for the one that died.
I'm using AMD SATA drivers (AHCI mode). Would MS AHCI make any difference?
Thank you,
J

Those are very good numbers.

 

[Bungee18]

Thank you whs.
One more question. I moved all temp and internet cache files to ramdisk. Would it make sense to move pagefile to ramdisk too? Windows doesn't seem to mind at all. Would it reduce writes to the SSD? How would it impact real life performance?
Thanks again,
J

 

[Parman]

for fun i decided to try ATTO.

 

[Britton30]

Nice SSD you have Parman.

 

[whs]

Thank you whs.
One more question. I moved all temp and internet cache files to ramdisk. Would it make sense to move pagefile to ramdisk too? Windows doesn't seem to mind at all. Would it reduce writes to the SSD? How would it impact real life performance?
Thanks again,
J

You worry too much. There is no harm done by the writes. I would not move anything. And if you have enough RAM for a RAMdisk, your pagefile will probably never be used anyhow. Reduce the pagefile to 2GBs.

 

[Britton30]

Thank you whs.
One more question. I moved all temp and internet cache files to ramdisk. Would it make sense to move pagefile to ramdisk too? Windows doesn't seem to mind at all. Would it reduce writes to the SSD? How would it impact real life performance?
Thanks again,
J

You worry too much. There is no harm done by the writes. I would not move anything. And if you have enough RAM for a RAMdisk, your pagefile will probably never be used anyhow. Reduce the pagefile to 2GBs.

True, it's best to have the PageFile on the OS disk. It could slow the system down if access is on another disk. Once the PF is created, there's not much change and very few hard writes to it.

 

[whs]

Gary, In his case there will probably not be a performance problem because he uses a RAMdisk - and his pagefile will hardly or never be used anyhow.

 

[Bungee18]

Thank you Gary and whs.
My pagefile is already 1GB. Should I increase it to 2?

 

[Britton30]

I suspect if you have enough RAM for RAMdisk 2GB won't hurt. I have mine, with SSD+HDD set 1GB min and 2GB max.

 

[whs]

Thank you Gary and whs.
My pagefile is already 1GB. Should I increase it to 2?

Nah, 1GB is enough too.

 

[kbrady1979]

Very little "normal" computer usage will use 4gb of RAM, much less 8 or 16. Set your pagefile to something you can live with as a precaution and rock on!

 

[kbrady1979]

I didn't get to setup the RAID like i wanted to but with one SSD i still see nice performance.

Those are good scores! Just as whs said, RAID doesn't give you much, if any, real world performance. RAID was a common setup when people had loads of mechanical hard drives that moved files around for backups, etc and needed to stripe them together in order to get more performance in the sequential read/write speeds. Remember, this was when hard drives would barely hit 100MB/s read and write speeds, and setting up a RAID 0 array would actually benefit reading and writing to/from that array. SSD sequential read/write speeds are 4 or 5 times faster than HD's and there is no need to stripe them together. If you have a traditional hard drive and SSD in your system, you can only read/write as fast as your SLOWEST component. So those numbers aren't really that important. The numbers you want to look at are Random 4k read/write(not the 4k-64thrd ones) and access times. Those numbers are exponentially faster than HD's and that is where you get your smokin fast real-world performance.

Edit: I am talking about RAID 0 and not any actual redundant RAID setups.....two different things.

 

[essenbe]

I didn't get to setup the RAID like i wanted to but with one SSD i still see nice performance.

Those are good scores! Just as whs said, RAID doesn't give you much, if any, real world performance. RAID was a common setup when people had loads of mechanical hard drives that moved files around for backups, etc and needed to stripe them together in order to get more performance in the sequential read/write speeds. Remember, this was when hard drives would barely hit 100MB/s read and write speeds, and setting up a RAID 0 array would actually benefit reading and writing to/from that array. SSD sequential read/write speeds are 4 or 5 times faster than HD's and there is no need to stripe them together. If you have a traditional hard drive and SSD in your system, you can only read/write as fast as your SLOWEST component. So those numbers aren't really that important. The numbers you want to look at are Random 4k read/write(not the 4k-64thrd ones) and access times. Those numbers are exponentially faster than HD's and that is where you get your smokin fast real-world performance.

Edit: I am talking about RAID 0 and not any actual redundant RAID setups.....two different things.

Parman, WHS and Kbrady are right. I know, I tried it. I saw no advantage with the exception of more disk space. It was absolutely no faster in actual use. In benchmarks the scores were fantastic, but in actual use, no difference at all.Considering the risk involved, it was not worth the effort. I broke the raid and reinstalled. So, take it from someone who's been there. Don't bother.

 

[whs]

The only useful Raid application for SSDs is when someone has two 30GB SSDs - like the OP the other day. Then you get a more reasonable combined size of 60GB for the OS installation.

The alternative would be to install the program files on the second independent SSD. But that has to be done during program installation.