Discussion in 'SSD Benchmark Locker' started by Bill Gates, Nov 9, 2011.
(NOT ME) THIS IS WITH A CORSAIR FORCE GT 120 highest 4k ive seen
Where is the link and any explanation that might explain such?
CORSAIR Force GT SSD 120GB SATA3 Hi-Speed Performance test with 3 Platforms LINK
yes ive seen these, windwithme does good reviews. SE and o fill.
its not just se and 0 fill. if it was we would see this alot more often.
Awsome speeds there. Latencies are super low too!
you do have to understand that 2x nm is not gonna do that low QD 4k. there are other ways to get results such as those....those drives have been out months, and there is no other results out there as high as those.
Why Mr. Compufella, what ever do you mean? STOP! Don't tell me.
how is it done? here is my best with 25nm nand never been se:
tweaktown and hardocp report (but do not actually show) those same kind of 4k results as windwithme
I'd like to see benchmarks with a "native" RAID 0 setup using AMD's 990FX chipset
and at least 2 or 4 of these CORSAIR FORCE GT 120s e.g. ASUS Sabertooth 990FX:
Newegg.com - ASUS Sabertooth 990FX AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
6 x SATA 6Gb/s
6 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s) support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10
yes i have seen a few amd benchies out in the wild..15-20 percent performance less than the competition(ICH10R). really too bad to as that is a decent platform.
Why am I slow
Guys, I just bought a 240gb Kingston hyper x, which should be faster than the
120gb model here. I flashed to the new 332 firmware to get rid of the freezes.
Every bench I test with, an ssd, crystal, show about the same read speeds
(though 4k is slower). BUT all my write speeds are terrible, for instance
Crystal gives 170, 115, 72, 111 ! I have an Asus p8p67 pro and latest bios
and on 6 gb/s channel, ahci, etc. I can not figure out why the writes are
about HALF the speed they should be. I even have indexing, prefetch, superfetch,
and system restore off. Please help.
Is it a fresh install or clone to your new SSD? Oh and welcome by the way...
First secure erase the drive. You can use ocz tool box it will work as long as you are in ahci mode and the drive is a secondary drive. You must first delete the partition so the drive is unallocated. Then run secure erase as administrator by right clicking and running it must be done this way. the tool box will detect the drive select the drive then click security tab and press secure erase then it should run it takes like 3 seconds or so. If it says drive is frozen go to virtual disk service and take drive off line and try again. after tool box says erase complete re-start computer. then you will need to initialize disk in virtual disk service. you should get a result like this when running cdm:
dont keep running benches with it after you are satisfied because you will induce write throttling. this is the problem with sandforce drives the write performance can easily be reduced by 40% if you are not careful and it wont recover much without a secure erase.
I actually tried OCZ toolbox, but it would not run or recognize the drive. Maybe I need to download a newer than 2 week old version? What version do you use?
Also, I used Acronis to backup from my old Intel 160gb G2 drive, when I did the restore everything checked out fine with the alignment in an ssd, crystal info.
In either case my read speeds are right in line, but the writes are terrible. Do I need to download special disk drivers or intel rapid storage stuff?
P.S. Going from a Velociraptor to Intel x2 160gb SSD HUGE DIFFERENCE
Going from Intel SSD to Hyperx Sandforce 2 NO DIFFERENCE
humm i just used the ocz toolbox to se an adata drive and it worked just fine i was using 2.30.02 if you want i will email it to you just pm me. The reason your drive is writing so slow is because thats what happens to sanforce drives after alot of writing. once the nand is mapped the write throttling kicks in and trim will do NOTHING and garbage collection will do very little. This is the inherent weakness of sandforce drives. When you se the performance will return but it will just degrade again. THIS is specifically the reason i personally do not think sandforce drives are the fastest. also the write performance of a sf drive with incompressible data is totally crappy with the exception of a 240gb drive which is going to become crappy over time. look at this my hyperx 120gb:
this is in a new state. i mean to go from 500mb/s to 170mb/s incompressible vs. compressible is abysmal. then once the nand is mapped it will drop to like 120mb/s or even lower and STAY there.
here this says it all in my opinion
120gb sandforce drive NEW:
128 gb marvell drive new:
then over time the sf drive will drop into the 400 point range and the marvell drive will stay around the same
Well just wonderfull. I guess I don't need to secure erase or redo anything because my benchmarks are about the same as your posted ones. I should be faster though, because I have the 240gb hyperx. Now I am just ****ed off because I did all the research, read all the reviews, waited for the BSOD firmware issues to be fixed, and then shelled out the $400 for the worlds fastest SSD (well OCZ Maxiops). It is brand new, not old and only half filled. Now I have to live with a drive that is NO faster than my old Intel x2 that I moved to my laptop? I can't return the drive either because I supposedly have a $55 rebate coming and had to cut out the UPC for Kingston. Wow, Sandforce, Anand, Tom, and you guys all pulled the wool over everyone's eyes about these horrible sandforce drives. And to think I spent all that money for a synchronis sandforce 2, 240gb drive to get the fastest money can buy, and it really is the slowest piece of crap. I can't believe my old Intel is just as fast and more reliable. AND I CANT BELIEVE EVERY SITE BENCHMARKED BARE DRIVES ONLY TO SHOW INCREDIBLE SPEEDS AND TOLD EVERYONE THESE ARE THE FASTEST DRIVES, THERE IS NO COMPETITION, REALLY?? I WOULD EXPECT MORE FROM THIS SITE ESPECIALLY, REAL BENCHMARKS ON A MAIN OS DRIVE THAT IS IN USE, NOT A BENCHMARK ON A DRIVE WITHOUT AN OS EVEN INSTALLED.
Hmmmm... I am going to let that ride....for now. If you come to a site for advise, by all means learn all that you can and benefit from it. If you elected to come here just to blow steam in an area for which you are still very confused, thus striking at our own review credibility, get ready for it.
You are viewing synthetic benchmarks. You are also viewing the opinion of one person. My initial thought for you is to enjoy your SSD because you WILL NOT see a difference in the drive you have or the other you may be wondering about right now. My next thought is, like most who try and ingest too much knowledge too fast, you are very confused. AS a matter of fact, that VERY drive that you bought is and HAS been my main staple for one of my test systems since before its release and its an excellent drive.
wow man calm down. maybe i just gave you too much of my opinion LOL..... this site is the go to place for ssd knowledge thats why i am a member. also its completely impractical to benchmark drives as the c drive. I run a kingston drive because i like it and its fast. If you want your speed back do a secure erase. your incompressible writes will be 300mb/s for awhile. btw if you are benching over and over you are degrading the writes. I am a fan of marvell drives for a whole host of reasons but there are sandforce fans that have there own legitimate reasons for choosing sandforce drives.
Thanks, but actually I have been building computers for over 20 years and am not confused. The only confusing thing was that everyone (not just your site) achieved the highest benchmarks of all SSDs with the OCZ Vertex 3 max iops and Kingston Hyperx 240gb drives. Before purchasing, I obviously read your site, Tom's, Anands, and a few other sites all showing 500mb/s reads and 300-500mb/s writes. I have a 4.7ghz sandy bridge system with a good Asus p8p67 pro mobo using the fastest sata port. A drive should be benchmarked after the OS is installed, not on a bare drive to get artificially high numbers. I REALLY HAVE TO AGREE WITH BILL GATES ON THIS MATTER. If I knew that my real every day writes were going to be 100gb/s, then I would have just kept my Intel G2, which does that. I now have to believe that Bill Gates comment about the Marvell controlled drives being faster (especially writes), and staying faster is what is most important. What is the use of the Hyperx or Maxiops being on top of all the benchmarks charts when as soon as you actually USE the drive, then benchmarks go down 70%?? My 240gb HyperX is only 4 days old and half filled, and I did not go hammering it with benchmarks all day long, once per day when installing different drivers. There is no way this is how the top of the line SSD should be performing brand new with horrible write speeds. I just don't get why everyone is living with these drives, excused the freezing and BSOD problems, and settling for a 70% performance lie? If I had the choice to buy a Lamborghini that goes 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds (for the first 100 miles, then goes 0-60mph in 9 seconds for the rest of its life, for $500,000 or a Ferrari for $500,000 that goes 0-60mph in 4 seconds for the first 100 miles, and then goes 0-60mph in 4 seconds for the rest of its life, then which car is faster?? My Honda goes 0-60mph in 9 seconds, but it was never the most expensive car or touted as the fastest. I do know a lot about drives, I had the original Raptors, Velociraptors, and Intel G2 and was happy with them all. Please tell me how you can put these Sandforce drives at the top of the speed charts? The only way I can see a sandforce drive being faster than the Marvell drive Bill Gates was demonstating the benchmarks for is if it was thrown off a cliff 5 seconds before the Marvell drive, it might actually beat it down to the ground. Nah, the sandforce would just get 70% slower and the Marvell would remain constant and beat it to the ground. Oh well.
---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------
I am trying to be sarcastic, and laugh at the situation, as crooked as it may be with Sandforces artificiall compression speed lies.
This reminds me a lot about the Micro SD card issues people are having with their smartphones. Reputable sites are all saying the Class 10 micro sd cards are way faster, but it turns out that most of the class 4 and class 6 cards are actually faster in writing then the class 10s. The class 10 does read a little faster, but does not write faster. People are switching their androids class 2 or 4 Sandisk with another brands class 6 or 10 and getting worse performance. Yes, IF all you care about is reads, then Sandforce is great. But I actually need a SSD that writes fast too, and Sandforce is misleading, it writes no faster than 2-3 year old SSDs or even WD Velociraptors. I want a snappy os, but also want my large games to install fast and copying movies to copy (write) fast, this drive has not improved my write speeds at all, and therefore is a $450 wasted upgrade. Is it realistic to think that the only thing people do with their drives is to read large sequential compressible files all day long? I don't think that is what the average or power user does, they use their drives for everything, small, large, reads, writes.
Separate names with a comma.