Assistance - Calling all Samsung EVO owners

Terrier_Jimlad said:
Using 5.5 makes no difference fella, and i'm already using an Intel SATA3 port, hence it's getting above 280MB/s already, just not near the 450MB/s I would expect
Click to expand...

I remember having an issue with the earlier version of HDTune, it gave misleading results if I remember correctly.

Also, this might be a long shot, but have you tried a different SATA lead ?
 
Last edited:
I think Samsung have delivered a very poor solution which only hides the inherent inefficiencies of TLC. Now we all know that wear levelling is used by SSD manufacturers so that we have consistent wear across all the cells - but samsung seem to be using this capability to move data to different cells so that cell charge degradation is not exhibited over time. What would be interesting would be to dump data on a Samsung basic or EVO and then take it out of a system and moth ball it for 3 months - I bet when it subsequently gets used the performance will have dropped through the floor - which would not be the case for any other type of SSD - I for one wouldn't use a Samsung SSD as an external backup - in fact I will never buy a Samsung SSD again....BTW - I contacted Samsung re my 840 basic exhibiting the same behaviour as the EVO - their advice was to secure erase and reload - and we all know that that is only a temporary solution at best..... poor product and poor service.
 
Last edited:
@darael Setting 8mb has provided a more pleasing and normal looking result.

16_October_2014_14_16.png
 
Oh I didn't know that either. Must have missed it. will try 8mb when I get home as my results were a little down too....
 
Here is mine on 8MB, much better now.

Only thing I can see is my 'burst rate' is lower than the ones posted above.

8acflZj.png


To compare this is my M4 256GB

bdwAfrY.png
 
Is 64kB more respresentive of the real world performance than 8MB block? I am asking because they all look very good with 8MB and there must be a reason why they set 64KB as a default.
 
ursine said:
Is 64kB more respresentive of the real world performance than 8MB block? I am asking because they all look very good with 8MB and there must be a reason why they set 64KB as a default.
Click to expand...
I did wonder this myself, but I came to the conclusion that HD Tune is for testing harddrives, therefore 64 KB might an optimal setting for harddrives.
 
my boot time is still slow

when I first installed windows 7 and had all my stuff on, it took around 4 seconds, before the fix and after, its about 2 mins
 
@ shi you on f12 bios?

only thing it could be is bios bug with new ssd fw? shouldn't take that long

@Pooh you might aswell update it now before it degrades,its easy to do
 
wazza300 said:
@ shi you on f12 bios?

only thing it could be is bios bug with new ssd fw? shouldn't take that long

@pooh you might aswell update it now before it degrades,its easy to do
Click to expand...



nah, im on F13

is it supposed to say on the loading screen? only tells me in the "DEL" bios setup screen
 
Before restoration
246eb36d7f1686f1f99d227a1220df54.png


After restoration
1a08a701691fe2e9c68a31aca84f5efd.png


I don't have anything like rapid mode enabled and didn't do any secure erase. I guess this is pretty decent, compared to how it was at least.

Edit - Redone with HD Tune Pro 5.50 with 8mb block size (also to note, my SSD is connected to a SATA 3 port)

7197d920a83c141e546103b6d02a61a3.png


:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom