AS SSD Benchmark benchmarks!

Ducky Spud · 21 Oct 2009 at 09:54

Just added the other vertex and set them up in raid 0 but now my pc wont boot! Windows is on my old hard drive so cant imagine why raiding those 2 drives would me effected it, but its saying boot manager isnt found

it is set to boot from the old drive too lol. No worrys, windows 7 in a few days so just install that if i cant get it working!

Ducky Spud · 21 Oct 2009 at 22:34

Well reinstalled windows haha. Got the vertex's in RAID 0 and these are the results

Only just set it up so not done any optimizing or anything. Much faster than when it was a single 30GB Vertex but not that much faster than some of the drives shown here. But the smaller drives tend to be slower anyway, 30GB drive slower than 128GB etc.

kablooey · 21 Oct 2009 at 22:57

Nate Silvers · 23 Oct 2009 at 00:37

Crappy score on my Intel 160 G2, which now has only 16gb left.

jbloggs · 25 Oct 2009 at 16:20

This is with 2 x Intel X25-M G2s set up in RAID0 in Win7 on Intel ICH10R controller, stripe 32KB:

Humate · 28 Oct 2009 at 17:33

Nate Silvers said:
Crappy score on my Intel 160 G2, which now has only 16gb left.

why do you only get 23.88MB/sec read on 4k-64 ???

I get this also on my x25-m 80GB (my 4k-64 read is 22.74mb/sec)... everyone else is getting over 100MB/sec... does anyone know why our 4k-64 scores are so low?

personally im using a p7p55d mobo, i7 860 2.8Ghz and 8GB G. skill DDR3 1600mhz ram.

peahead · 28 Oct 2009 at 21:15

This is my G.Skill Falcon 128g which i have just put windows 7 onto.

My 4K-64 THRD score seems low compared to mr_x_plosion G.Skill 128 post :confused:

.

Humate · 29 Oct 2009 at 08:59

peahead said:
This is my G.Skill Falcon 128g which i have just put windows 7 onto.

My 4K-64 THRD score seems low compared to mr_x_plosion G.Skill 128 post .

at first i thought it might be an issue with AS SSD as everyone using version .40358 gets low 4k-64 scores... EXCEPT kablooey... which blows that theory out the window.

redballoon · 29 Oct 2009 at 18:53

Here's my results for a week old Intel 160GB G2 with the latest firmware. 82.5GB remaining.

Using a P5Q Deluxe (ICH10R) with AHCI and I've uninstalled the Intel drivers and gone back to the standard win7 ones.

father-ted · 1 Nov 2009 at 12:24

Can somebody take a look at this and tell me if I have it set up correctly?

Many thanks.

John24 · 1 Nov 2009 at 12:50

Looks spot on to me. You can compare it to rick fowler's in post 16 aswell if you like.

Robdata · 1 Nov 2009 at 23:03

samsung 64 gig

read 119 write 100

Dont know how to get my pics in here :confused:

is it resticted ??

John24 · 2 Nov 2009 at 03:45

Is what restricted, ssd, app or forum? SSD maybe, more details please. App isn't and neither is the forum as far as I know. Instructions to take a screenshot are if the first post.

Robdata · 2 Nov 2009 at 09:34

is there a guide? i cant paste my pics in here.how do u do this? :confused:

jbloggs · 2 Nov 2009 at 11:15

You have first to upload them to the likes of Photobucket or Imageshack which then gives you different links which you can use you copy/paste into your post...

hardtarget · 2 Nov 2009 at 12:09

Great thread regarding SSD performance. Would be even better if it stated make and size of your SSD. Also your OS and if your running it in RAID at the top of your post

Greebo · 2 Nov 2009 at 12:39

hardtarget said:
Great thread regarding SSD performance. Would be even better if it stated make and size of your SSD. Also your OS and if your running it in RAID at the top of your post

make and size and whether running in RAID or IDE or ACHI is listed in the benchmark result.

Only info missing is the OP system.

crazybones · 2 Nov 2009 at 13:18

Fresh install of Windows 7 onto a new Crucial 128 GB SSD (IDE) on which I upgraded the firmware to 1819 prior to installing W7. Note the slow write speed in common with other users suffering issues with the 1819 firmware:

Now after a couple of weeks use, the write speed is now back to where it should be:

Robdata · 2 Nov 2009 at 21:39

Samsung 60 gig on XP

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3157/47090439.png

Dont know why it is so low.Might something to do with my netbook intel 1.6 GHZ

FireShadow · 3 Nov 2009 at 15:03

This seems faster in some respects

I can benchmark over 1,000 MB/sec using this block level cache:

http://www.superspeed.com/servers/supercache.php

By enabling the lazy write feature you get hard disk write access at RAM speeds

The advantage of SSD is that you get fast read speeds straightaway, whereas supercache has to read it once before it is quick

also supercache runs at normal hard drive speeds on a cache-miss

Also to get the true benefit of supercache reorganising your hard disk into more volumes is a good idea

It also has less obvious benefits - lazy writing smooths out the hard drive access profile into longer sequential writes meaning less wear and tear and head movements etc.

But on the plus side - supercache is very cheap and the performance gains can be ridiculous

For instance compiling a large visual studio project with a nice warm cache drops the time from 60 seconds to 2 seconds

And SQL Server performance goes through the roof!

I think SuperCache + SSD Stripe is possibly the ultimate price/performance setup