103424K vs 1024K offset

Hagar · 4 Jun 2012 at 13:05

I have noticed many SSD tests with 1024K offset and very few with 103424K.

The latter is with the 100MB system partition which windows 7 installs in front of the boot drive ie 100 x 1024 = 102400K + 1024K. Total offset = 103424K

Does this mean most testing is done without windows on the drive?

I am interested if this gives an unrealistic or optimistic speed test. Please comment.

Guest2 · 7 Jun 2012 at 08:13

I found this through google.

On my old P45 motherboard it shows 103424K on the 'new' P55 board it shows 1024k and speeds are about half for read and write

Bane · 7 Jun 2012 at 11:44

Vista does a 1024K offset, but doubt that many people are using it.

Can W7 be installed without recovery partition thingy, thus defaulting to 1024K?

Guest2 · 7 Jun 2012 at 12:02

I think that's what it is. I thought it automatically creates one if you remove it when installing windows 7. I removed it and installed like i normally do but its not there.

Does it matter?

Sin_Chase · 7 Jun 2012 at 12:25

For testing should not matter.

As for the offset itself, as long as it is a multiple of 1024 then everything is fine.

Guest2 · 7 Jun 2012 at 15:23

Sin_Chase said:
For testing should not matter.

As for the offset itself, as long as it is a multiple of 1024 then everything is fine.

What do you mean for testing should not matter?

I'm running my machine like this all the time now, not just testing

Hagar · 7 Jun 2012 at 16:31

Guest2 said:
What do you mean for testing should not matter?

I'm running my machine like this all the time now, not just testing

I think he means that whatever the offset is as long as it is a multiple of 1024K, the test results should be the same. In answer to my first post.

Guest2 · 7 Jun 2012 at 17:40

Are right, I see. Thanks