The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    SSD Speed: Posted vs Actual?

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Krane, Jul 1, 2012.

  1. Krane

    Krane Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    706
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Okay so I'm reading this article in the June issue of Videomaker and they're giving a review of one of the video workstations. When they get to the part where they're rating the operation of the drives the SSD (Kingston Hyper X) its rated at a Read/Write speed both over 500. But in the review, its only managed just slightly better than the 375 mark for read and in the lower one teens on the write.

    What could account for such a huge discrepancy in ratings like this? And how does one guard against spending the money for a premium drive only to get real world speed of less than that of a RAIDed HDD?
     
    Krane, Jul 1, 2012
    #1
  2. baii

    baii Sone

    Reputations:
    1,420
    Messages:
    3,925
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    131
    I assume the workload is not sequential then? It is not a huge discrepancy but more on how they advertised it.
     
    baii, Jul 1, 2012
    #2
  3. NotEnoughMinerals

    NotEnoughMinerals Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    772
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    56
    What review testing methods are they using?
     
    NotEnoughMinerals, Jul 1, 2012
    #3
  4. Krane

    Krane Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    706
    Messages:
    4,653
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    131
    I knew someone would ask that. Here's and excerpt and the details below. Thats a pretty big performance disappointment, don't you think?

    Performance
    SSDs are by far the fastest hard drives available on the market. The Kingston HyperX SSD boasts 555MB/s read and 510MB/s write speeds. When bench-marked, however, it only achieved 375Mb/s read and 113 MB/s write, which is still plenty fast. The biggest advantage to an SSD however is their access time, which is a mere 0.2ms.

    The complete review:

    http://www.videomaker.com/article/15500/
     
    Krane, Jul 1, 2012
    #4
  5. tijo

    tijo Sacred Blame

    Reputations:
    7,588
    Messages:
    10,023
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Trophy Points:
    581
    One problem is that they do not mention which benchmark they used. The HyperX uses the infamous SF-2281 controller which means that to have any chance of getting those speeds, you need compressible data as well as sequential reads and writes. On top of that the write speeds advertised are for the larger capacity drives.

    Here's a SF-2281 SSD that i benchmarked with incompressible data and it has much better speeds at double the capacity. That is a worse case scenario too. Also, the advertised speeds usually reflect the best possible conditions which rarely happen. Mushkin Chronos Deluxe 240GB by the way (the drive is currently in RMA).

    [​IMG]

    EDIT: On top of that, the type of NAND does have an impact too, asynchronous, synchronous or toggle.
     
    tijo, Jul 1, 2012
    #5