Intel 320 SSD HD tune and CDM result. Is this normal?

I just got the new Intel 320 SSD 160GB. I installed fresh Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit. During Windows 7 installation, I partition 60GB (for OS), the remaining (for data), and some 100MB that Windows 7 created by itself.

Windows 7 installation is complete. I do not install any additional driver and immediately run HD Tune Pro and CDM. Here is the result. HD tune pro seems very slow. Can somebody advise what's wrong?

There are 4 files attached.

2 screenshots from HDTune: HDTune with IRRT mode and HD Tune with AHCI mode.

2 screenshots from CDM: CDM with IRRT mode and CDM with AHCI mode.

 

Here is my screenshot for the same drive. I am running Win7 Ultimate (x64) too.




--

 

Increase block size in HD Tune settings.

 

Are you running Intel Rapid Storage ?

Run As SSD Benchmark

 

I wouldn't partition SSDs like that. Delete the partitions and create one as the entire drive.

Use CDM on 3x 100 MB setting to reduce wear.

 

@abula: no i am not running intel rapid storage. i assumed it's just storage driver to make it work. would it make any difference?

@phil: i like having a partition in my ssd, it's easier to manage data. why do you suggest NOT to partition?

@ramgen: do you install intel rapid storage? mine doesn't have any additional software/driver other than the one from win7.

 

For the performance it's better not to partition.

And yes IRST driver performs a bit better.

 

yes, i do.

--

 

In what way partitioning would affect performance ?

 

Check the first post.

 

Are you suggesting that the first post number are due to partitioning ?

 

Yes, it's not the first time I see a weird CDM result on an SSD with partitions.

 

I just got my Intel 320 Series 160GB as well and i am getting similar speed as bigbulus on his 1st post with even lower Sequential Read Speed (Around 225MB/s) and 4k Write Result also lower (Around 21MB/s).

The SSD is brand new but i did a secure erase on it before use and tried putting it as 2nd Drive (1 Single Partition and ZERO DATA on Drive) to run the benchmark and also run it as Primary (Single Drive) with Single Partition with Fresh Windows 7 Pro 64Bit Installation and Latest Intel RST Driver (AHCI Enabled / Free Fall Sensor Disabled). AS SSD also shows similar result. I have run the CDM and AS SSD benchmark a few times and never got anything above 225 MB/s on Sequential Read (But Sequential Write is around 167 MB/s which matched the spec).

I am wondering if my drive is faulty (hence the lower sequential read speed) or am i not doing the benchmark correctly ?

Any input is very much appreciated. Thank you.

 

@ TechDept, how is your 4K random read?

Make sure you have installed Intel Rapid Storage driver from Intel.com

And try these tweaks: stamatisx tweak - Google Search

 

Thanks Phil. I just moved my SSD to my Desktop (Previously was using a Laptop - Dell Latitude E6410) and now my SSD is showing similar result with Ramgen. I have no idea why it is showing 2 different result while i did the same to both - Secure Erase then Fresh Win 7 Pro 32 Bit Install + Intel RST v10.x + Intel SSD ToolBox + Crystal Disk Mark + AS SSD. Anyhow i am just relief that my SSD is running normally.

ps : I have a small problem with the SSD, everytime i try to secure erase it with Intel SSD Toolbox, it will fail at 20% for the 1st try, then it will proceed to finish if i try 2nd time. I have done this 3 times with exact same result.
This has also lowered my SMART - Erase Fail Count to 99 from 100. Should i be concerned ?

Also, does doing too many secure erase to the SSD harmful ? e.g. Wear Down the NAND ?

Thanks Phil and everyone here.

 

The reason your laptop shows lower performance is probably the chipset. The tweaks I linked to should solve that.

Secure erases do wear down the NAND, they're not good for longevity.

 

You do not need SE on Intel drives(at least x25m and 320) as it supports TRIM and a quick format under W7 achive the same result as SE, performance wise.

the only reason you want SE for this model is because you want to 'secure erase' the content so it can be disposed or that your drive has serious issue.

There should be big sticker in this forum saying 'YOU DON'T NEED SE'. I believe vendors that keeps on asking people to SE are OCZ(or anyone that is using a SF inside). It becomes their first line of response whenever people have problem with the drive or whenever people complaint about performance. IMO very irresponsible.

 

@techdept: I thought mine was faulty too, until you post that you have similar result (slower than ads) when you installed in E6410. Guess what my laptop is Latitude E6400. As Phil said it's probably the Dell Latitude chipset that caps the performance.

I had WD 320GB 7200RPM before in this Latitude E6400 and the benchmark result always slower than others.

In conclusion: Our SSDs are OK!! Hope you enjoy the SSD.

By the way, Intel said that 320 SSD has encryption. How to enable this? I only see to set hard disk password in the BIOS, nothing said encryption whatsoever.

 

@bigbulus: Glad to know that, at least we both know our SSDs are ok. Btw, have you tried secure erase your SSD with Intel SSD ToolBox before ? Does it fail on the 1st time like mine (Please check my previous post on top) then it proceed normally on 2nd try ?

Does your SSD S.M.A.R.T. Status - Erase Fail Count show Normalised Value as 100 or 99 ? Anyone know what does this means ? I suspect the value went down due to my secure erase failure as mentioned above but i am not sure... Any input on this is much appreciated as google did not turn up any meaningful result.

I am pretty concern about this as i did 5 time Secure Erase (10 times in total - 5 times failed, 5 times successful) on my SSD (before i got the advice here NOT To... I hope this does not wear down my SSD NAND too much - any expert / pro advice here is much appreciated on this - Now my HOST WRITE is around 500GB & HOST READ is around 850GB after only 7 hours usage !)
I done those to do all the Diagnostic & Benchmark, which now i regret... But what to do, what's done is done... Hope you or any expert / pro here can help / advice / provide me some info on this... (But i feel better now knowing what i did at least is helping others on this forum)

ps : Does Host READ wear down the NAND or just Host Write ? Thanks.

Thanks everyone !

 

@techdept:
I didn't do any secure erase at all. I installed it as primary drive and the tools didn't allow me to do secure erase.

Here is information you requested:
Erase Fail Count: 0 - 100 - 0
Host Writes: 188.69GB - 100 - 0
Host Read: 359.34GB - 100 - 0

Don't worry too much with your 10x SE. It may/may not wear down NAND; whatever the case is, this SSD is premium item "from Intel" and Intel won't make it easy for your SSD to get broken that easy, especially just because of 10x SE. You need to do better than that to break this SSD.

Sit tight and enjoy your speedy ssd

 

as mentioned above, you don't need to worry about that SE thing. 10/5000 is a small number.

However, you really don't need SE. So stop SE in the future. SE is kind of the equivalent of old HDD low level format. Something that is the last resort.

 

Thanks bigbulus and chimpanzee. Hope my SSD is fine.
Btw, anyone know what does the SMART Status - Erase Fail Count means ?
Also, do i need to do the Intel SSD ToolBox Quick or Extended Scan every now and then ? Does it harm the SSD ? How about Scandisk (Windows 7) to check for Bad Sector ? (I am wondering if that is proper for SSD or will it harm the SSD since SSD has no 'sector' ?) Thanks in advance guys.

@chimpanzee - Sorry, can i ask what do you mean by 10/5000 ? Do you mean that the SSD can only be Secure Erase 5000 times ? and why is that ? Thanks.

 

yes. the NAND should be able to at least have 3000-5000 PE cycle. Let's take the 3000. 10/3000 is 1/300. less than 1% of the life.

no need to do any scanning, not even TRIM if you are running W7. Though both doesn't hurt. i use the toolbox is to check the SMART to see my average write/month.

 

I thought 25nm NAND is 3000 PE /C.

No need for TRIM? How do you mean chimpanzee?

 

was referring to the TRIM feature in the toolbox. and yes, why I 'revised' the new number to 3000 as I noticed it is the 320.

BTW, this one is interesting(well sort of further confirming my guess that Intel is getting out of the NAND market slowly)

Intel Breaking Up IMFT NAND/SSD Joint Venture? | StorageReview.com

 

@ chimpanzee / @ Phil - Thanks !