SSD's: Not getting complete transfer speeds?

Vanhishikha · 5 Jul 2012 at 04:11

Hey guys,

I went and got a Corsair Force 3: 120GB SSD a while back now, I went and did a bit of research and found this link:

http://blog.ocztechnology.com/?p=178

So I followed it, did all the steps that it asked and also, I went ahead and installed my SSD using the AHCI option with my BIOS itself.

But as of recently, I've been noticing a lack of transfer speeds, this SSD is suppose to get and I quote:

- Sequential read speeds of up to 550 MB/s
- Sequential write speeds of up to 510 MB/s

But I've been noticing speeds when copying a 800mb file of only 50-80Mb/s?
I thought this was quite strange, so I went and done a little HDD speed test and here are my results:

Now, I'm not sure if this is good/bad/mediocre or what, but to me if I'm suppose to be getting speeds of 500mb etc, surely it's low right?

Do I need to update my firmware or what?

Any help/advice would be HUGELY appreciated.

Sin_Chase · 5 Jul 2012 at 04:32

Do you have it installed into a SATA-III 6Gbit/Sec port?

Vanhishikha · 5 Jul 2012 at 05:41

Sin_Chase said:
Do you have it installed into a SATA-III 6Gbit/Sec port?

That's probably it isn't it? Damnit, did a research on my board and yeah:

Six Serial ATA 3.0 Gb/s ports

Well that is a little upsetting now isn't it,

Surveyor · 5 Jul 2012 at 07:23

It may be disappointing not to see the full sequential read and write speeds but you're still getting very low access times and high 4K read/write speeds compared to a HDD.

If you were using a HDD before than you should still be noticing a big improvement.

The PC should still be booting a lot faster, programs should be loading quicker and should just feel more "snappy".

jeff6475 · 5 Jul 2012 at 07:53

its like internet speed you get up to 550 etc

Vanhishikha · 5 Jul 2012 at 08:01

Thanks an awful lot for the great responses guys, they've helped a lot.
It is a lot faster, but I was just hoping for a big improvement on those read/write times, I mean, I'm getting a new motherboard/cpu in sept anyhow, but still, it would have been nice to have the speeds here also >.<.

Thanks guys.

pastymuncher · 5 Jul 2012 at 09:11

Even if you had a 1156 board with Sata 3 it would be using the awful Marvell controller (like mine does

) and the speeds would be little better. In fact my write speeds are lower on the sata 3 Marvell controller than the sata 2 Intel controller. Needless to say i have mine on the Intel controller. I will get the best out of my ssd when Haswell launches next year.

This is what i get on Crystal disk mark on the Intel controller:_

Seq Read 277.8 Write 237.2

512k Read 267.6 Write 236.8

4k Read 38.85 Write 109.0

4kQD32 Read 179.0 Write 193.5

There would seem to be something wrong with your scores.

smithy83 · 5 Jul 2012 at 09:23

click file > test data > All 0xFF (1 Fill) then run the test again

arad85 · 5 Jul 2012 at 10:36

smithy83 said:
click file > test data > All 0xFF (1 Fill) then run the test again

Yes... use compressible data to get the benchmarks up...

The SandForce controllers are known to be slow when working with uncompressible data. It's why I have a Corsair Performance Pro in my machine......

ChocolateStarfishRammer · 30 Jul 2012 at 20:30

arad85 said:
Yes... use compressible data to get the benchmarks up...

The SandForce controllers are known to be slow when working with uncompressible data. It's why I have a Corsair Performance Pro in my machine......

To revive an older thread..

Question on this.. I could be added 2+2 and gettings 5 here but Ive allways leaned towards unticking the "compress this drive the save disc space" button in the drives properties... If this was ticked on one of these corsairs "which i have" would it make it faster??

Reason I ask, like the OP, usually running CrystalDisk I get about 100-200mbps read/write but doing what was advised and setting it to compressed.. it jumps up to the 400-500 mark.