Show us your SSD performance 2

[kbrady1979]

Having a scratch disk for your type of work is really beneficial. I hope you get great results with it!

 

[sygnus21]

So last week I received my Samsung 850 Pro (512gig) SSD drive but had to wait to install it because I wanted to reinstall the OS, but could only do that till after my finals. Finals done (yay, I passed), I got the drive installed with a fresh OS (Windows 8.1) install, and most of my programs installed as well. With that I was finally able to get AS SSD to run without error (after the OS reinstall), unlike previous attempts as posted here.

Anyway here are the results...

840 Pro (256 gig)


850 Pro (512 gig)


850 after OS optimization and Rapid Drive enabled


Accounting for the placebo effect, and the fact that I did a clean OS install, still, things seem a bit snappier with this drive. But I won't argue the placebo and OS install effect.

Anyway I'm more interested in the added storage space as I can now move some files around and use the 840 as the secondary drive and my test bed for Windows 10.

@ kbrady, yes I always use a scratch drive, and usually put it on the secondary drive.

Thoughts?

 

[essenbe]

It seems the 850 and the 840 Pro score about the same without rapid. With rapid though, the 850 almost doubles the score of the 840 Pro. Must be something special about the new 3D ram. Great scores.

 

[sygnus21]

Thanks Steve. Everything seems to be working well. Now all I need to do is finish my programs installs, wipe the 840 and install Windows 10 on it through VM.

 

[paulpicks21]

Looks real good Drew!

 

[IownAmoneyPit]

Bought a new Samsung 840 120GB SSD for my main rig (See Specs) and does it ever Leave my Intel 530 drive in the dust, especially when they were both tested just after install.




Samsung 840



Intel 530

 

[cheezz]

SSDs: Win7Ultimate vs Win10TP

Both SSDs are configured for max performance and rapid mode enabled but in Win10 the score is half that of Win 7. Anyone else experiencing the same? Hopefully it's the OS and not the SSD. TIA. Top image is Win 7, bottom Win 10.

 

[essenbe]

Mine are pretty much the same. This ia a Samsung 830 in dual boot with Windows 10 preview, both on the same drive.

Windows 10


Windows 7

 

[cheezz]

Thanks Essenbe. I thought it was just me.

 

[cheezz]

I was playing around and uninstalled IRST. Score shot up. Windows 10 score almost similar to Windows 7. Just wanna let you all know.

 

[jonnyhillow]

Bought a new Samsung 840 120GB SSD for my main rig (See Specs) and does it ever Leave my Intel 530 drive in the dust, especially when they were both tested just after install.


View attachment 338545

Samsung 840

View attachment 338546

Intel 530

I thought testing the Samsung with rapid mode was deceiving and not indicative of real World performance , what are the differences without rapid mode enabled .


This is how i understood it :


The max actual transfer speed of a sata III port is around 475-515 MB/s, depending on your motherboard and several other things, but that is around the max even the fastest SSD can transfer data. The benchmark scores are really nothing but show. What an OS SSD does is the 4kb read speeds and access times. No matter if my Raid score is way faster than your score, but look at only the 4kb read speed and the access times. There is only slight differences.

I will bet you if I took my Raid set up and put it in your machine and didn't tell you, you would turn your computer on the next day and notice no difference in actual usage. That is how much difference benchmark scores matter. So, don't be discouraged because yours benchmark lower than others. It does not matter at all in actual usage. I have 2 or 3 Crucial drives, in other machines.

This Samsung 840 Pro will eat them alive in any benchmark you want them to run. In actual usage, there is little to no difference. Sometimes I can tell a slight difference, but 95% of the time there is none. I don't like raid and don't like running it and advise everyone else not to. The only reason I did it is I have 2 X 256GB SSDs. My OS takes up about 40-45GB which leaves a lot of wasred space, but my Games or data will not fit on the other 256 GB drive or on the extra space of my OS drive. So, basically I have a whole lot of expensive space left over and pretty much useless, for the way I want to organize things.

So, I raided them to give me close to about 480-485GB. With that space, I can run my OS and games on the 2 SSDs. But, I am taking a big risk, but I backup every night and only have the OS and games on the raid. So, if one died today, it would cost me a clean install which I have down to a fine science. I could be up and functional in an hour after the updates are finished, and most of those I have in the ISO I use for installs. Just so you understand. Benchmarks mean nothing but bragging rites. There are only 2 numbers that really matter.

 

[essenbe]

Sounds like something I said.

 

[kbrady1979]

To be honest most people couldn't tell the difference between a good SATA II SSD and a SATA III SSD.........as far as felt performance goes.

 

[GeneO]

Just another data point. I am running Z87 with a custom BIOS that has Intel RST option ROM 13.5.0.2118 and windows driver 13.5.0.1056 on an Asus Hero VI.

128GB Samsung 840 Pro

-

 

[tinmar49]

I don't have a ripsnorting power pc (fx 4300, gtx 750 ti 16 gb ddr3 1600) but it's more than fast enough for me. But I have one of those Samsung 850 pro 256 magic boxes. AS SSD gives various results, here are with and without the rapid mode.

 

[sygnus21]

To be honest most people couldn't tell the difference between a good SATA II SSD and a SATA III SSD.........as far as felt performance goes.

I kind of somewhat agree... but you would if you're paying attention as SATA III just feels a bit snappier. For example, when I moved from my 128 gig OCZ Vertex 2 (SATA II) to my 256 OCZ Vertex 4 (SATA III) I didn't need benchmarks to tell me the system was snappier. I just felt it.

On the other hand I will say that when I subsequently moved from my Samsung 840 Pro to the Samsung 850 Pro (both SATA III), other than the bench numbers telling me differently, I haven't "felt" an increase in performance like that felt by moving from SATA II to III. That was a bit interesting since the 850 Pro was supposed to be all that and a bag of chips. Not disappointed though.

I know that last paragraph is a bit off point, but I just wanted to point that out. So yeah, moving from one interface to another, yeah, a little. Staying on the same interface but increasing performance... maybe not felt so much.

My two cents.

 

[Comicsnut]

Man, I can't wait to get a new motherboard for that SATAIII support...

 

[tinmar49]

I have another pc with a Verbatim 128 gb sata 2 (Athlon 235e onboard graphics 8 gb ddr3 1333) which runs quite well, admittedly on 8.1 with very different AS SSD results.

 

[kbrady1979]

To be honest most people couldn't tell the difference between a good SATA II SSD and a SATA III SSD.........as far as felt performance goes.

I kind of somewhat agree... but you would if you're paying attention as SATA III just feels a bit snappier. For example, when I moved from my 128 gig OCZ Vertex 2 (SATA II) to my 256 OCZ Vertex 4 (SATA III) I didn't need benchmarks to tell me the system was snappier. I just felt it.

On the other hand I will say that when I subsequently moved from my Samsung 840 Pro to the Samsung 850 Pro (both SATA III), other than the bench numbers telling me differently, I haven't "felt" an increase in performance like that felt by moving from SATA II to III. That was a bit interesting since the 850 Pro was supposed to be all that and a bag of chips. Not disappointed though.

I know that last paragraph is a bit off point, but I just wanted to point that out. So yeah, moving from one interface to another, yeah, a little. Staying on the same interface but increasing performance... maybe not felt so much.

My two cents.

Do you think the felt difference was from a fresh install? Or the actual difference in drives?

 

[sygnus21]

Do you think the felt difference was from a fresh install? Or the actual difference in drives?

Well looking at the records on my system builds reveals that I bought my Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD5 motherboard in June of 2010. On that board the Intel controllers were SATA II, which is where I installed my first SSD drive (OCZVertex 2 (128 gig)) I bought in Dec of 2010.

When I bought the Vertex 4, in Aug of 2012, I still had my Gigabyte X58A system (i7-950) which didn’t get replaced until Nov. of 2013.

This means both drives were install on the same board; And no, I didn’t do an OS reinstall, I did a hard drive migrate using Paragon Migrate as discussed here from posts 924-941.

So, no OS reinstall, or system rebuilds, just a simple drive swap, mainly from smaller to larger drive (128-256)

FYI, I keep an excel spreadsheet of all my purchases and builds by components installed in any one system. This is how I can be so precise. I know exactly what I have, where it’s at and when it was purchased. This of course includes serial numbers and any other pertinent info

But again, no OS reinstall, or system rebuild. So yeah, I think this was really felt, but…