Kingston SSDNOW V200 Is Having Serious Performance Problems

Another man complaining about poor writes. He has 64GB version.
AS SSD score: 97.

Underperforming SSD - techPowerUp! Forums

 

It is surprising. The V100 is scoring much better than the V200. According to Kingston the V200 should score better than the V100. This has been mentioned on the previous pages.

Is anyone a member of Techpowerup forums or Anandtech? If so please mention the same problems here.

____

And the fourth person with a V200 gets the bad performance.

 

It looks like a bad batch issue. I don't think Kingston release performance data without testing it in labs.

 

Here's what Kingston got on their 256GB V200.

 

Okay W.T.F its like my score got even crappier.

 

This is the second drive I got from kingston with a fresh install. I'm just getting very frustrated with kingston right now.

 

call them and ask a refund or upgrade to HyperX.

 

Before I call how do I make sure I'm on ahci? When I'm in the BIOS I see an option "ata" "ahci" and "raid". It's on option "ahci". Any other way I can test to make sure its on ahci?

 

AS-SSD confirms your in AHCI by the letters iaStor.

That's bad performance by Kingston. Asking a free upgrade to the HyperX to compensate for your troubles might be a good idea.

Or maybe even better: ask your money back.

 

Well just spoke with Kingston and from there understanding there might be a problem with the v200's R&D is looking into the problem. I just hope they upgrade my drive because waiting for a refund and the fact they might not give me the full amount because i used two gift cards on my newegg order.

 

Update: Well after some pushing and shoving, Kingston is sending me a HyperX SSD for my troubles. I will post benchmarks when I get the drive. If this drive doesn't work then there has to be something wrong with the laptop, which I highly doubt.

 

ha ha. wonderful news and good customers service.

btw is it b'new?

 

Both RMA drives brand new in package.

 

if it's b'new then eBay it and purchase more reliable M4 or Samsung 830.

 

I am a member here and also in Anandtech. I had a V series ("425") 64GB, and it performed so well in my laptop that I decided to get the V200 128GB. I ran some benchmarks, with the drive just partitioned (diskpart in Win7 AMD64) and I was getting 178MB/seq write. The drive was partitioned in my desktop.

I suggested using a different SATA cable, but in a laptop that might not be possible. Let me dig my test reults and I'l post. In the meantime, let me do a quick crystaldiskmark run in my laptop, where the drive is the boot drive.


Alex

 

Well, here are 2 runs of crystaldiskmark as boot drive in my laptop. Scores are definitely lower. Will post scores of the drive, tested on the desktop in a few minutes.

Laptop HP Pavilion DV4-2040us, Turion II M500 "Caspian", SB750, AHCI. Drive was cloned from the SSDnow V "425", but I know the drive is properly aligned, cloned used Norton Ghost 2003 partition to partition. Ghost 2003, while capable of doing a "sector by sector" copy, in normal mode copies by file. Drive is partitioned in 2, OS partition has hibernation off, pagefile set at 128MB, no defrag, and I just disabled indexing.

Crystaldiskmark results, fisrt 2 runs with index disabled.

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 196.953 MB/s
Sequential Write : 42.733 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 120.983 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 32.612 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 2.323 MB/s [ 567.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.687 MB/s [ 656.0 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 16.681 MB/s [ 4072.6 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 10.340 MB/s [ 2524.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 62.1% (36.4/58.6 GB)] (x2)
Date : 2011/12/13 22:40:56
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

******
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 202.663 MB/s
Sequential Write : 79.126 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 138.723 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 28.140 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 3.058 MB/s [ 746.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.842 MB/s [ 449.8 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 23.139 MB/s [ 5649.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 8.021 MB/s [ 1958.3 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [D: 49.4% (30.0/60.6 GB)] (x2)
Date : 2011/12/13 22:48:40
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)


A third run in my data partition, with index enabled.

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 194.235 MB/s
Sequential Write : 94.799 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 133.257 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 24.422 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 6.828 MB/s [ 1666.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.669 MB/s [ 651.7 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 44.582 MB/s [ 10884.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 9.670 MB/s [ 2360.7 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [D: 49.4% (30.0/60.6 GB)] (x2)
Date : 2011/12/13 23:00:52
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)


Alex

 

So how were you getting 178 seq write? From your benchmark it looks like you lost almost half your write speed.

 

I registered only to be included in the group called "disappointed Kingston V200 buyers" and it looks like there are alot of us.
I got the 64GB one, same (worse) disappointing performance.
I have tried everything there could be tried: ports, cables, reinstalls with different options every time, bios settings.... nothing helps. Either the drive is faulty, or V200 sucks big time. I believe the second, having in mind that I know nobody that has the V200 and has nice benchmark score. Do you know someone?

 

Here is the original test run, when the drive was just partitioned and formatted, meaning, empty disk, attached to my desktop as additional drive. It wasn't 178 MB/s, it was 163. Sorry, no .pgn screenshot of this one, I just saved the data.

I am utterly confused as to why the scores dropped so much once I got it in my laptop.


Alex



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 246.521 MB/s
Sequential Write : 163.827 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 185.665 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 76.648 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 12.078 MB/s [ 2948.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 14.011 MB/s [ 3420.6 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 47.088 MB/s [ 11496.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 24.608 MB/s [ 6007.8 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [M: 0.2% (0.1/58.6 GB)] (x2)
Date : 2011/12/06 21:44:02
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

 

Sounds like the drive only works good when its empty with no data.......

 

That is interesting find. New Kingston V200 slogan: works best if not used.

 

ljesh,

They can't use that one - OCZ/SF has earned that slogan over the past two years now.

 

Hello Everyone,

I'm still talking to Kingston about it right now - I'm getting the same kind of results (if not worse). My hard drive is the 128GB V200 SSD and it's pretty full already (72%), and getting horrible write results.

See attached.

Hopefully I can talk to them and get a HyperX SSD too. Any tips on what to say =P.

 

I would direct them to this thread and let them know that there is a major problem with there V200 SSD. And they should stand by there warranty/cs and upgrade you to a HyperX for your troubles. But remember I had to RMA two drives before they upgraded me.

 

Just received my HyperX SSD. Doing a clean install now will let you guys know what my readings are.

 

Hi Guys!

I've just registered to report another very slooooow 64GB Kingston v200 SSD.
I got it on monday in exchange for a Samsung HDD RMA.

My results are very... bad.
The system is lagging, an installation take ages, worse than my 3 years old HDD.
Tried every possible driver (msahci, amd_sata), SATA cable, SATA port. Partitions aligned properly, TRIM enabled.

I hope Kingston will find some kind of solution...

system info: Gigabyte MA78GDS3H (SATA 2), Athlon II X4 640, 2*2GB Geil DDR2, W7 x64

 

All,

I'm glad I came across this site. Even though I have the desktop model of the drive (64 GB Kingston SSDNow V200 under raid 0), I'm receiving similar performance issues. I've attached my benchmarks for AS-SSD and CrystalDiskMark and pretty much done everything to increase performance (i.e. different sata ports, different sata cables, reformatted W7 under Marvell & Intel controller), but I'm still getting a Windows Experience Index of 5.9. This is unacceptable, especially under a raid 0 configuration. I thought this was normal since I assumed maybe SSD's haven't matured yet. But after doing some research, there are other drives that give solid performance. I think I'll go ahead and proceed with the RMA for those HyperX drives and reference Kingston to this site.

 

Another V200 "happy" customer. I don't understand why they blame on the specific drive and not on the whole serie. It's obvious that the V200 is terrible. I have not seen ONE positive experience with this serie yet.

By the way, after exchanging few emails with them, they offered me to mail them my V200 64GB, and they will send me a SVP100S2/96GB.
Should I take it or should I use the V200 to record myself breaking it, and post the video on youtube?

 

I just bought a V100 256gb today, I hope I don't come to regret my decision. Is this issue limited to V200 series?

 

Yes, looks like only the V200 has terrible performance by default.
The V100 may have a problem, but that isn't a rule... unlike the V200.

 

Very happen with my HyperX. WEI is now rating my SSD 7.9!

Now my question is, is CrystalDiskMark accurate? Because CDM is showing a low write speed, but ATTO is showing the advertised Write/Read speed. Tell me what you think.

 

Well, this is getting even weirder. I re-enabled index on the boot partition of the drive, re-ran crystaldiskmark and this is what I got:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : Crystal Dew World
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 212.305 MB/s
Sequential Write : 165.443 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 143.949 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 13.831 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 5.730 MB/s [ 1398.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 2.464 MB/s [ 601.5 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 50.458 MB/s [ 12318.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 4.653 MB/s [ 1136.1 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 62.3% (36.5/58.6 GB)] (x2)
Date : 2011/12/14 0:27:34
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)



I included the 4th run with the other 3 (lower right) My best run so far, looks much better, except for that random 512KB write. I see a firmware update in my crystal ball.


Alex

 

From reading your comments, it sounds like this drive may have an overly aggressive GC. The V100 already had a very aggressive GC but maybe Kingston took their luck too far.
This is something that easily can be fixed with a firmware update.
I think that all the V200 users should hold their breath for a month or so and see if Kingston releases a fix.
One should not forget that this is a very new drive based on a new chipset. Most of you are getting bad performance in benchmarks but reasonably good in real life usage. I think that's better than the horror OCZ/SF users had to endure the last six months with blue screens.

 

we all know that the v200 is an entry-level ssd, so the performance is not a problem, but the all-time lagging during write operations it is

check my screenshots, they are a few posts back

 

I received my RMA form today but I am doubting to use it.
I don't know if I should exchange my V200 64GB for a V+100 96GB. Any advice?
Exchanging it will leave me without a SSD for over a month, and I believe too that firmware fould fix it, which may be published in those days...
I don't know what to do :/

 

Get ~28GB capacity for free, a proven SSD solution in the V+100 and get much more than the 64GB V200 will ever offer even with a firmware update. You cannot beat capacity and at this low (capacity) level, capacity translates almost directly to performance you will feel everyday (not to mention breathing room for you and your O/S + programs).

In the meantime, use a HDD for a month - easily worth the up/downgrade to the V+100 over this 'dud' V200 experiment Kingston has tried.

Good luck.

 

Thank you, I needed someone to tell me what to do because I really was confused.
The SSD will be mailed to them tomorrow

 

What i would do is fight for a hyperx ssd. You still get 3 years warranty and a faster drive. I don't have time to wait for a firmware update or a fix. I love my hyperx ssd that they replaced my v200 with.

 

I tried that, they didn't let go

 

Try speaking to Supervisors, Managers or someone higher up and insist on Kingston HyperX reciting your inconvenience and tell them about this thread and I'm sure they will do anything to avoid bad publicity.

 

The problem is that takasniper got a 128GB hyperx because he had 128GB V200.
I have a 64GB V200, so they are giving me 96GB V+100. They are keeping the balance somehow

 

wow I wished i read this post before buying my first SSD. I'm a very happy customer lol read speed is great but look at my write going to contact kingston right now

 

Got my V200 128GB last week and I also have the slow write problem. Kingston has offered a V+100 128GB in exchange but wouldn't that be a downgrade? Technically at this point it would be an upgrade but should I hold on a bit and hope that they'll fix this V200 problem?

 

Now you should fight for a HyperX or that's really a downgrade.

I don't get it, why they aren't fixing the problem? If they exchange all the V200 the series would be pointless. EVERYONE has problems with the V200, and I have not found yet SOMEONE being happy with it. Bloody Kingston, I will never again buy anything from them.

 

Man more disappointed v200 customers. I was lucky they upgraded me to hyperx has been running strong last two days.

 

I asked for a HyperX or KC100 but I was told exchanges were based on speed ratings and that those drives were twice the speed of a V200, so he couldn't do it. He did offer me a refund though..

 

slight improvement
still not really happy. also i have 15 days to return it to frys. spend $190.00 so i have a few days to play with it and see what happens. If not i will buy another brand. Kingston better fix this

 

This result is much better, what did you do?

 

Take the refund if they refuse to upgrade. It wouldn't make sense to get stuck with a V100 for the price of a V200.

 

Syberia,

A working SSD with 50% more capacity is definitely worth it (don't know how expensive the V200 was though...) over no SSD.

In this way, it makes a lot of sense as long as the price paid for the 64GB V200 is not too out of line (considering the performance the V100+ will offer in exchange).