Is my SSD slow?

Hi guys.

Please, I need your help and opinions.

I have a Clevo M765S. Ι recently purchased a SSD (Samsung 830 64GB) and a PATA-SATA caddy to replace the optical drive. The SSD has taken the place of the old HDD and the HDD was put into the caddy. A classic solution that I assume almost everybody is familiar with...

I know that the southbridge is a sis968 (SATA 3GB/s capable) that works at SATA 1,5GB/s, which is acceptable to me.
I was expecting a read/write speed around 100-150 MB/s but CrystalDiskmark results confused me. Here they are:

R W
Seq: ~68, ~108
512K: ~64, ~107
4K: ~15, ~44
4K(QD32): ~60, ~65

Is it my idea or reads seem to be a little slow? Shouldn't they be around 100-150 MB/s?

Things I have done/checked...
1. TRIM is working.
2. AHCI is working.
3. Partitions are aligned.
4. SSD checked on a Desktop with SATA 3GB/s . Reads are up to 270MB/s.
5. Some OS specific tweaks have been done, except disabling write caching.
6. Two thirds of the disk is free space.

Any ideas?

Thank you.

 

Install Samsung Magician and tune up and see whether it helps: Download Samsung SSD Magician 3.2 Free - A powerful tool for optimizing and managing your SSD drive - Softpedia

 

Already installed, run all tweaks (Performance Opt, OS Opt, firmware latest), no effect...

 

I don't know if those 'scores' are acceptable or not, but what I do know is:

The SSD is greatly hampered by the small (64GB) capacity with the controller's channels not being fully populated and the nand not being optimally interleaved (as noted by the slow 270MB/s at SATA3 speeds).

The overhead with SATA1 is much higher than with SATA2 or SATA3 and the relationship is not linear going from one 'spec' to another.

Was this a clean install or a clone? What O/S?

I would recommend doing a clean install - deleting all partitions via Windows Setup first - and no 'tweaks' at all. And highly recommend Windows 8 x64 over any other O/S if you want the most performance from the components you have (or will get in the future).

And to directly answer your question: yes that is slow (much slower than a HDD in certain aspects).


Good luck.

 

Firstly, it's 270MB/s at a SATA 3Gb/s interface (not sata3), which is close to the protocol's limit.I believe that SSD is ok. And I forgot to mention that it's a clean install of Windows 7 x64.

But what you are saying about the overhead, seems interesting. Can you elaborate on this?

 

Thanks for the correction (sorry, I misunderstood).

Not saying the SSD is not okay - just that the SATA1 connection will be much worse than the 'theoretical' possible in real world and specific benchmark program use (if you benchmark with another program, it may show a much higher 'score').


If you did any 'tweaks' - it is not a clean install...


The 'overhead' is my term to describe what I see with different (and varied) systems: the older hardware (even with modern components) perform nowhere close to what a modern platform offers. This difference in actual vs. expected performance is the 'overhead' I'm trying to describe here.

For example: a Core 2 Duo system (desktop) with a SATA1 connection to one of the HDD's takes 10x longer (not the expected 2x...) to finish certain tasks. I thought for sure the system was borked - but digging a little deeper the same task on the same computer runs at 'normal' speeds on the C: drive (same model/capacity HDD but SATA2 connection) so it is only the SATA1 connection that is different.


While this 'overhead' doesn't normally show itself in sequential R/W 'scores' - it may be an interaction with your system and this specific SSD (I have seen systems with a better 'fit' with a HDD than an SSD).


You may want to try the default MS AHCI driver (or, if you are already, see if IRST will install and improve things) and see if these issues get cleared up for you.


(Another (desktop) example with Win8 vs. Win7: In a RAID0 setup with 2 Raptors and Win7 a huge (no, I mean HUGE) improvement was seen going to a single Raptor and Win8. The owner could not believe that a RAID0 setup was 'beat' by an O/S upgrade... again; just shows that some systems are more (or less) compatible than others with the new tech).

 

Sorry, my bad. I meant not a clone.

It's a sis chipset so I don't think it's possible.

Anyway, I see your point. Your comments were helpful! I had the same thoughts. But a second opinion is always welcome.

Thank you very much.

 

Don't forget the core2 duo might slightly bottleneck the 4k random reads and writes. Especially if aggressive power saving options are enabled. Otherwise, everything looks good for sata2. Sata 6gb/s would really only double your sequential speeds. Your 4k random reads (I. E. System, snapinness and boot times) are pretty much dictated now by your CPU speed and power saving options.

 

It won't go faster.. really impossible.

Try using the program ATTO Disk Benchmark and see what it says