ssd on AMD speed problems

Memphis Raines · 25 Sep 2012 at 16:14

I was running an intel core 2 P35 system and wanted to move to something newer more power efficient and with faster ports (sata3/usb3/ddr3)

I decided to go with AMD and a gigabyte 880 board.. with an X2 550

I read a lot about AMD chipsets being slower than intel esp with sandforce ssd controllers.. and i know to take benchmarks with a pinch of salt lol..

but i cant get past the numbers.. they are actually lower (apart from Atto) then the Sata2 intel board (which i cant find the benchmark pics for atm) but around 240 read and 200 write Seq. roughly..

I dont want/cant to go back as for 1, this system uses around 50% of the lekky the core2 did and it is generally quicker

Anyway, I am just looking at what options i have atm on a tight budget..
a, a newer/better AM3 mainboard? or b, give in and go over to intel i3/5

or c, get a different ssd better suited to the AMD chipset? (if there is one)

wazza300 · 25 Sep 2012 at 16:19

whats wrong with those figures? atto is the right benchmark for sandforce drives as it shows compressable data performance

Memphis Raines · 25 Sep 2012 at 16:20

as pointed out, i was getting close to sata2 limits on my old board, and now i am getting slower speeds on a newer sata3 board

and other systems bench between 450 and 500MB seq read

wazza300 · 25 Sep 2012 at 16:24

your not in atto though are you? as ssd and crystal disk favours non sandforce controlled ssd's

heres my force gt on intel sata3,not much difference from yours

Memphis Raines · 25 Sep 2012 at 16:29

tbh.. i dont like atto, as compressed data is no use to me.. If i copy to another ssd i only get around 150 - 180MB/sec.. on large files which is pretty dissapointing tbh

wazza300 · 25 Sep 2012 at 16:53

are you using the latest mb bios and ssd firmware?

Hagar · 25 Sep 2012 at 17:07

Sandisk Extreme 240GB on ASUS AMD 990X chipset using standard microsoft drivers. AMD drivers made little difference a few MB each way. The SSD is on a SATA III SB850 port. The difference with your SSD is synchronous / asynchronous NAND. Agility 3 uses asynchronous and is a bit slower.

Overall real world SSD performance is not a lot different.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Orcvader · 25 Sep 2012 at 17:13

ATTO uses uncompressable data while the other two uses already compressed data. Sandforce drives hates data already compressed.

What files do you put on the SSD?

Johnchristin · 4 Oct 2012 at 11:18

The sandforce drives don't hate compressed data. If you look at the benchmarks, sandforce drives work about the same as other drives when they have only compressed data. But when they have a mix of data or more real-world data they work even faster. Other drives are always one slower speed on writes. Sounds like sandforce drives have an advantage here.

drakioned · 4 Oct 2012 at 11:22

Johnchristin said:
The sandforce drives don't hate compressed data. If you look at the benchmarks, sandforce drives work about the same as other drives when they have only compressed data. But when they have a mix of data or more real-world data they work even faster. Other drives are always one slower speed on writes. Sounds like sandforce drives have an advantage here.

No, they really hate compressed data.

If you compare AS SSD between a Crucial M4/Samsung 830 and a Sandforce drive, you will see huge differences. Just look at the differences between the screenshots above.