AS SSD Benchmark benchmarks!
- Thread starter John24
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,242
- Location
- Birmingham
This was my post here on 12th May 2010
Now 27th June 2010 and look at the performance degradation!!!
Can anyone tell me whats going on? I currently have 14.6GB free on my X-25M which is unpartitioned.
My new Intel 80GB X 25-M, 41.6GB free space remaining
Now 27th June 2010 and look at the performance degradation!!!
Can anyone tell me whats going on? I currently have 14.6GB free on my X-25M which is unpartitioned.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,027
Looking at this thread I notice most of the Intel 80GB drives are performing as fast as my 160GB Intel drive is when connected to a modern mobo (MSI P55-GD65). ASSSD reports 405 for the 160GB drive, so the 160GB drive appears no faster than the 80GB ones (according to your results). I also have an 80GB intel in an XPS1330 laptop(not a modern laptop now) which results in 356 ASSSD result. This shows there is a difference between the 80 and 160GB drives but I think this difference in my case is the difference between an old Dell XPS 1330 MOBO and a new MSI P55 mobo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,399
- Location
- London
C300 64Gb Raid0 Sata II.
2x 64 gb c300 raid 0 sata 2.
more to come on 6gb sata.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
/i/27062010160330.png/]
[/URL]
Uploaded with ImageShack
more to come on 6gb sata.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
/i/27062010160330.png/]
Uploaded with ImageShack
Last edited:
Hi all,
I just installed a WD SiliconEdge Blue 64GB SSD into my system, used Acronis to clone the old drive over to it and all went well. When I put the SSD in and set it up in Win 7 disc manager I just let it partition it with the default options and alignment etc.
Now, when I ran the SSD benchmark tool I get the following results:
What worries me is the 4k & 64 results look really bad compared to others and in the info panel in the top left it has that red writing "31 K BAD"?
Should I start again with the cloning process and prepare the drive this time with a specific alignment numbers?
How do I tell if TRIM is working etc?
Many thanks,
Matt.
I just installed a WD SiliconEdge Blue 64GB SSD into my system, used Acronis to clone the old drive over to it and all went well. When I put the SSD in and set it up in Win 7 disc manager I just let it partition it with the default options and alignment etc.
Now, when I ran the SSD benchmark tool I get the following results:
What worries me is the 4k & 64 results look really bad compared to others and in the info panel in the top left it has that red writing "31 K BAD"?
Should I start again with the cloning process and prepare the drive this time with a specific alignment numbers?
How do I tell if TRIM is working etc?
Many thanks,
Matt.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,908
- Location
- Merseyside. UK
Would it be worth getting one of these instead of a samsung spinpoint F3?
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-007-CR
Never had an SSD before so it would be my 1st experience with them so hopefully they are as good as they are made out to be, and hope fully not die on me withing weeks of use like some drives have reported to do.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HD-007-CR
Never had an SSD before so it would be my 1st experience with them so hopefully they are as good as they are made out to be, and hope fully not die on me withing weeks of use like some drives have reported to do.
im in the exact same boat. Have an f3 1 gig and will prob grab one of these soon. They can be had on special for £111 inc a drive bay adapter.
Speed wise, write isnt gread, read is awesome. For OS, some games etc which you only ever load (read), its cracking!
Speed wise, write isnt gread, read is awesome. For OS, some games etc which you only ever load (read), its cracking!
Unfortunately Acronis messes up the partition alignment, which makes it work harder than it needs to. This is how you fix it If your comp doesn't boot into windows afterwards, the repair util on the windows disk should sort you out. You probably won't feel the difference in real world use once it is aligned though, so don't worry about it too much if you decide you can't be bothered. The read speeds for your drive are normal and write speeds aren't that far off an aligned Siliconedge drive ... they'll never be up with the likes of a c300 or Sandforce drive, but past a point it makes little noticeable difference.Hi all,
I just installed a WD SiliconEdge Blue 64GB SSD into my system, used Acronis to clone the old drive over to it and all went well. When I put the SSD in and set it up in Win 7 disc manager I just let it partition it with the default options and alignment etc.
Now, when I ran the SSD benchmark tool I get the following results:
What worries me is the 4k & 64 results look really bad compared to others and in the info panel in the top left it has that red writing "31 K BAD"?
Should I start again with the cloning process and prepare the drive this time with a specific alignment numbers?
How do I tell if TRIM is working etc?
Many thanks,
Matt.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13
I purchased the new Acronis True Image Home version a month ago, and it absolutely *does* retain alignment from my aligned X25's, to aligned WD HDD's, and then restored back to X25's... FYI.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,983
Single ssd c300 64 GB iAHCI vs IDE
you can also watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmKTB1w9TDE
you can also watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmKTB1w9TDE
SSD Bench
Drives: 2x 60GB OCZ Vertex 2E
Controller: ICH9R / SATA II
Array: RAID0 / Stripe 128KB / Alignment 1024KB
Boot Time:
-
HDD Bench
Drives: 4x 1TB SpinPoint F1
Drives: 4x 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
Controller: 3Ware 9690SA / 512MB
Array: RAID5 / Stripe 256KB
Drives: 2x 60GB OCZ Vertex 2E
Controller: ICH9R / SATA II
Array: RAID0 / Stripe 128KB / Alignment 1024KB
Boot Time:
-
HDD Bench
Drives: 4x 1TB SpinPoint F1
Drives: 4x 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
Controller: 3Ware 9690SA / 512MB
Array: RAID5 / Stripe 256KB
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,027
Has anyone tried RAID mode = RAID (even when not using RAID configured disks) vs AHCI?
Without doing a reinstall between changes my system reports a score of 405-410 with RAID mode set to RAID (with no disks raided) and only 390 when RAID mode set to AHCI. These scores are quite consistent across multiple test runs.
Without doing a reinstall between changes my system reports a score of 405-410 with RAID mode set to RAID (with no disks raided) and only 390 when RAID mode set to AHCI. These scores are quite consistent across multiple test runs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 4,223
- Location
- Returning video tapes
Mine C300s up and running (MSACHI)
-----------Read-------Write
Seq--------267--------72.9
4K---------27.7--------52.06
4k-64 -----179.4-------64.66
Acc T ------0.133------0.672
Score ------234--------124
Overall------------479
-----------Read-------Write
Seq--------267--------72.9
4K---------27.7--------52.06
4k-64 -----179.4-------64.66
Acc T ------0.133------0.672
Score ------234--------124
Overall------------479
Last edited:
Crucial C300 128 GB
Just got my hands on a Crucial C300 128GB and i'm really impressed with the performance. Here's the bench result as a spare drive on an Asus Rampage II extreme using standard Sata 2 3Gbps.
Just glad I went for the 128 rather than 2x64GB.
Just got my hands on a Crucial C300 128GB and i'm really impressed with the performance. Here's the bench result as a spare drive on an Asus Rampage II extreme using standard Sata 2 3Gbps.
Just glad I went for the 128 rather than 2x64GB.