• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

840 Evo 120Gb, results

BTRY B 529th FA BN

BTRY B 529th FA BN

Lifer
I thought this SSD was fixed so I forgot about it. Just recently seen there will be another firmware to fix people's issues with their drive. So for the first time I thought I'd do a performance benchmark by Samsung Magician 4.5.1

I don't know if these results are good or not as I haven't found any comparisons.

EDIT: should probably mention that I've had it for maybe a year?

Used Space: 96.5 GB
Free Space: 15.1 GB

EDIT2: windows power config is set to 'Power Saver' - i don't know if this makes a difference because when Samsung Magician is installed it tweaks the power config accordingly for an SSD drive

840%20evo_zpsdfrllobe.jpg~original
 
Last edited:
That's why I never even look at an SSD with less than 256GB. 120/128GB is just too small for the SSD to breathe
 
BTRY B 529th FA BN said:
Thank you. I am mainly curious on hard performace results for comparison. I don't know if my results are good or bad.
Click to expand...

They are similar to the results I got when I loaded my 64GB SSD up to 90% (as an experiment, to see.) It really slows down the drive when it's that full. I know there is overprovisioning and all that, but nothing beats raw empty space to maintain good SSD speed. A traditional HDD will do the same thing, but usually you won't see performance issues until it gets +95% full, SSDs are more sensitive to this.
 
You can move it... don't copy and paste. Google 'move steam directory' or similar and find how to do it properly. That would get you down to 80% or so... that should help.

Prove it to yourself... Run a test bench now, move the file, run GC ('optimizer' in Magician) and then rebench. I'll bet the results will surprise you.
 
Charlie98 said:
You can move it... don't copy and paste. Google 'move steam directory' or similar and find how to do it properly. That would get you down to 80% or so... that should help.

Prove it to yourself... Run a test bench now, move the file, run GC ('optimizer' in Magician) and then rebench. I'll bet the results will surprise you.
Click to expand...

Got it from Origin but thanks and I'll look into it.

Maybe this will help. I never had performance issues I just basically was looking for some comparisons but this all has been helpful so far. Thanks

EDIT: oh wait, will Steam Mover work for the origin directory?
 
Last edited:
BTRY B 529th FA BN said:
Got it from Origin but thanks and I'll look into it.

Maybe this will help. I never had performance issues I just basically was looking for some comparisons but this all has been helpful so far. Thanks

EDIT: oh wait, will Steam Mover work for the origin directory?
Click to expand...

The basics are the same... but it's been a while since I've done it.

A lot of people overvalue benchmarks, I simply use them as a tool (the Magician has a nice benchmark utility that's easy to use and understand) to make sure my system is working like it should. Don't use a single benchmark as a basis to do something drastic... I perform them over a few days, after a reboot, etc, to make sure it's not just an isolated problem or event (like the AV running hidden in the background, etc.) and I will verify a bad reading with another, different, bench. I do the same with GPU benches (Valley and Mark) and even LinX or Prime (for CPU temps, RAM stability and such.) Not trying to be a benchmark King or anything... I just want to make sure my system is running right. 😀
 
Charlie98 said:
The basics are the same... but it's been a while since I've done it.

A lot of people overvalue benchmarks, I simply use them as a tool (the Magician has a nice benchmark utility that's easy to use and understand) to make sure my system is working like it should. Don't use a single benchmark as a basis to do something drastic... I perform them over a few days, after a reboot, etc, to make sure it's not just an isolated problem or event (like the AV running hidden in the background, etc.) and I will verify a bad reading with another, different, bench. I do the same with GPU benches (Valley and Mark) and even LinX or Prime (for CPU temps, RAM stability and such.) Not trying to be a benchmark King or anything... I just want to make sure my system is running right. 😀
Click to expand...


Honestly I don't play BF4 that much if at all and it wouldn't bother me if it didn't work.. actually I was just thinking of uninstalling it all together, hah
 
You're also on an i7 970 with an x58 motherboard where the native chipset ports are limited to 3Gbps only. Your board has Marvell 6Gbps SATA ports on it but most people experience issues with non native SATA ports along with poor speeds.
 
Last edited:
Coup27 said:
You're also on an i7 970 with an x58 motherboard where the native chipset ports are limited to 3Gbps only. Your board has Marvell 6Gbps SATA ports on it but most people experience issues with non native SATA ports along with poor speeds.
Click to expand...

So is that why the sequential Read & Write are capped around the high 200's?
 
BTRY B 529th FA BN said:
So is that why the sequential Read & Write are capped around the high 200's?
Click to expand...
Yes. SATA 3Gbps gives a theoretical maximum throughput of 300MB/s (as displayed by Windows) however there is some protocol overhead so in reality the most you can hit is ~285MB/s.

x58 and other chipsets from that time did not support SATA 6Gbps so motherboard manufacturers added a separate Marvell controller and added some 6Gbps ports that way but in reality these ports are rubbish and don't perform even as well as Intel's 3Gbps ports and many users have experienced issues with compatibility within Windows or when trying to use SSD toolboxes etc.

The only decent way to get that SSD running at 6Gbps speeds would be to upgrade your platform to something newer and use native Intel or AMD 6Gbps SATA ports.
 
Coup27 said:
x58 and other chipsets from that time did not support SATA 6Gbps so motherboard manufacturers added a separate Marvell controller and added some 6Gbps ports that way but in reality these ports are rubbish and don't perform even as well as Intel's 3Gbps ports and many users have experienced issues with compatibility within Windows or when trying to use SSD toolboxes etc.

The only decent way to get that SSD running at 6Gbps speeds would be to upgrade your platform to something newer and use native Intel or AMD 6Gbps SATA ports.
Click to expand...

Is that largely true even with something like the Z68 mobo?
 
Charlie98 said:
Is that largely true even with something like the Z68 mobo?
Click to expand...

I tried installing Windows on the Marvell 6 Gb/s controller on my GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3. It installed Windows OK, but it would sporadically freeze for no reason after the installation. So, I suppose that's why they are advertised as not for the O.S.

The Intel 6 Gb/s ports on that board did great, but the ports on my Asus "feel" a little faster.
 
Charlie98 said:
Is that largely true even with something like the Z68 mobo?
Click to expand...
No. The 6 series was the first chipset to natively support 6Gbps ports. The 6 series had 2 on-board ports and some boards added more using Marvell controllers. I had a Z68 board for a couple of years which ran either a single Samsung 830 as the OS drive or a pair of 830's in RAID0 and I didn't experience any issues and performance wise it was exactly where it was supposed to be. Although they were first gen 6Gbps ports, they worked very well.

As ketchup79 has experienced above, bolted-on Marvell ports are generally problematic. I've lost count how many threads have been created in this forum alone of users having issues with their SSD's which were traced back to using one of those Marvell ports. It's much better to use an Intel 3Gbps port than one of those Marvell 6Gbps ports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top