SSD Benchmarks

Since I have a few SSDs lying around (and I buy/sell a few every now and then) I decided to amalgamate some benchmarks and post them here. I'll update any time I get a new one. These are mostly drives I get on sale, or ones that come in used laptops I buy every now and then. So yes, I'm well aware these aren't SanDisk Extreme Pros or the like. Nevertheless, figured there might be some people out there curious as to what some of these drives actually do, as opposed to their advertised performance.

SanDisk Ultra Plus 128GB


ADATA SX900 128GB


Crucial MX100 256GB

 

@HTWingNut

Man, that Samsung M.2 drive is insanely fast. Too bad it's currently also insanely expensive (at least where I live).

The other results are pretty much in line with what I've been saying for a long time - for my every day use, most SSDs tend to perform the same. While some are faster than others, I don't really notice the difference.

Also shows that the Crucial MX100 is still right up there in terms of price/performance.

 

Indeed, that M.2 is very tempting ... guess it'll have to wait until an X99 Clevo is available ... stuck with mSATA till then. Main priority is sequential writes (databases), so low random 4K performance (games?) is not an issue.

Samsung 840 Evo mSATA (2x256GB, 64 KByte stripe)

 

Samsung SM843T 2.5" (960GB).
I believe that it uses that same controller as the Samsung 840 Pro. This drive is spec'd to do up to 500MB/s sequential read and 370MB/s sequential write.


Same drive, different program:

 

Nah, it gets easily bested by the BX100 SSD (a 'throw away' drive) in the spec's that count in the included graphs.

 

Seriously, how are the 4K speeds that awful? Unless all you do is huge file transfers, the XP941 drive is a waste of time and money.

The SM951 seems to mostly fix those issues, so in theory it *should* be noticeably faster than a SATA drive, but I still don't see how it is worth its exorbitant price.

 

I have yet to find a way to justify the massive price premium of these M.2 PCIE drives. Where I live, a PCIE drive costs about twice what a regular (SATA) M.2 drive costs, which itself can be as much as 50% more expensive than a 2.5" SSD.

 

The only possible answer is that Samsung couldn't figure out how to game those benchmarks.

As for the SM951 being any better (except for bm 'scores')? I reserve judgement until I see them for myself in real world workloads.

 

It seems, most PCIe drives can't handle random, low queue depth 4k performance at this time. Therefore, SATA SSDs are better OS drives. Oh, and way less expensive to boot.

 

And run cooler... don't throttle as easily... can be used in most notebooks and desktops from 'yesteryear'... and have been proven over many years of use vs. the marketing we are being fed now from all manufacturers...

 

Indeed, my Sandisk Extreme II never breaks 40C whereas these M2 SSD's break 60-70C easily...

 

Specially in thin Apple similar gaming laptops

 

Don't insult gaming laptops by calling a Macbook pro a gaming laptop lol... It's a media production laptop lol.. Which loves overheating

 

No, it's a flat grill that you can surf the net with. Breakfast and google and a fruity apple a day... so good for you.

Of course you tell everyone it's a media production machine... but, the fresh eggs and ham give you away. lol...

 

I had that drive before on an ASUS G751JY laptop, sequential writes are great, close to a RAID setup but the 4K is a joke, half of what I get on my 850 Pro. Don't know how such an advanced modern SSD sucks so much in 4K, which is all that matters in terms of OS / program snapiness.

 

Not to mention, if you own one you get the title of Macfag

 

Is that breakfast and a cig?

 

Takes one to know one you poofter

 

Google translate ... Meant similar thickness. Thin = hot

 

Shots fired.

 

Ahh, did you own a Mac before? I've never owned one although i do admit I owned an iPhone 4... After 2 years with it, I moved to Android and will never go back to that locked down ecosystem..

More like Broadsides fired

 

Back to the topic of SSD benchmarks, here are mine if anyone cares.

A small M.2 Toshiba SSD which I found:



Sandisk Ultra II - 128GB



Samsung 840 Pro - 128GB

 

Samsung 850 Pro 256Gb.

 

No, never owned a Mac. Just think it's juvenile to equate Mac ownership with homosexuality.

 

ellalan Is this a Samsung 850 pro ? I think especially 4K(write) score is to low on a 850 pro. Can this be right?

Tested Crystal DiskMark with my Samsung 850 pro.
Is the score correct as this is running on Windows 8.1?

 

Indeed paupsan the speed he is getting o his 4k is half what he should get, something is wrong there. That's the most important benchmark criteria he probably is using the AHCI driver of Windows or is using the latest IRST thinking it's the best when usually the best is what is supported by your computers manufacturer, I have tried them all and always went back to Dell's 12.8.0.1016

 

Yes something is very strange. I use Dell's 12.8.0.1016 irst. What is your opinion about my score, as I use Win 8.1? Is the it where it should be? Think you get higher scores with win 7. Do not remember how much more ...

 

Not in SSD benchmarks, Windows 8 gives me 5% higher scores for SSD benchmarks that Windows 7, I am in the process of formatting my PC and will share a few new tweaks with you soon and also compare your scores to mine, stand by my brother

 

Wonderful.

 

Papusan & Matrix Leader 6,
Yes, I noticed that but I thought it was down to Win 10TP perhaps, these BM programs may not be ready for Win 10TP.

 

I don't understand anyone using a BETA OS really. You should eliminate first possibilities......I'd start by you telling me which IRST Driver you are using, then tell me if you're running an AV while benchmarking, which AV? Then we need to turn off Windows Cache Write Buffer (then reboot) then test, if all doesn't help, I'd try Windows 8.1

 

Just compared your results to my previous 512GB 850 PRO and they're about the same. Good job.

My single 850 PRO 1TB, saturates the limits of SATA III interface:

mind you this is on Win 7 back them on Win 8 the results would be 5% higher:

 

Chipset make a pretty big difference in random read write, just saying.

Sent from my 306SH

 

Matrix Leader 6; why you get much higher scores in 4K Crystal Disk Mark than my 512GB 850 pro? A 1TB 850 Pro should not be so much better in 4K? What am I doing wrong except to use Win 7?

 

There is a HUGE difference between the 1TB and the 256GB 850 PRO:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/730

See in the benchmark above how the 1TB gets almost 90 points higher than the 256GB. With that said, the 512GB version of the 850 PRO is even slower than the 256GB. So it is like this

1TB > 256GB > 512GB

strange but that's how it is

 

now the tweaks I was talking about.......the other day I formatted and installed Windows 8.1, upon checking the Windows \ System32 folder, I found that many files/folders in there are in blue text color, meaning they were compressed!! I tried to right click them to uncompress them but I was denied access until I had to take ownership. Now there are hundreds of files so I didn't wanna do this to every file so I formatted and the first thing I did was:

1) Disable NTFS Compression:

in an elevated command prompt type:

fsutil behavior set disablecompression 1

you cannot do this and have the previously compressed files uncompressed, you MUST format and do this tweak the moment you see the Windows desktop then reboot

2) Disable NTFS Encryption

3) Disable Paging Executive (to not have the Windows kernel files go to your page file as those are the most crucial

Also, in IRST, make sure you disable Link Power Management and in Device Manager turn off Windows Write-Cache buffer flushing by right clicking on the SSD drive and going to policies then reboot

 

Are you talking about the file in the winsxs folder?

 

didn't even check that I am talking about many files in the system32 folder

 

Interesting. The only files in that folder that I've seen compressed is DRVSTORE and WinSXS

Might want to recheck that link

1TB: 331.84
512GB: 323.07
256GB: 293.28