Intel x25 SSD G2 - Slower than normal

[Sunday Ironfoot]

I've just bought an intel x25 160GB SSD hard drive for my laptop. Laptop specs are:

2.2GHz Core 2 Mobile (T7500) - 4MB cache
4GB DDR2 677 RAM
intel 965m express chipset
nVidia 8600GTm GPU
160GB intel x25m G2 SSD
Windows 7 64bit Ultimate (RTM)

I've run CrystalDiskMark 2.2 against it:

Seq: Read 230.5 MB/s | Write 95.63 MB/s
512K: Read 173.2 MB/s | Write 92.87 MB/s
4K: Read 9.3 MB/s | Write 11.27 MB/s

Whereas the Seq and 512K speeds seem fine, the random 4K read/write speeds seem a little low, as I have seen scores of around 20 - 50MB in other peoples benchmarks/reviews.

Is there something I've not set up properly?

 

[taltamir]

4K: Read 9.3 MB/s | Write 11.27 MB/s

... a raptor gets ONE TENTH of that speed... Jmicron SSD get one THOUSANDTH of that speed.

This is more than an order of magnitude faster than spindle drive, and 3 orders of magnitude faster than Jmicron SSDs.
This is the BIGGEST selling point of the intel X25 and why it obliterates the competition...

11.27 MB/s = 11.27 MB/s x 1024 KB/MB = 11540.48 KB/s
11540.48 KB/s / 4KB/write (input operations) = 2885.12 write (input operations) / second
aka 2885.12 IPS (no O)

IOPS = Input Output Operations per Second (combined, notice we only calculated input operations before)
IOPS Supposedly improved from 3000 in G1 to 6000 in G2 according to intel. AFAIK the raptor got 300 IOPS.

 

[IntelUser2000]

OP:

Have you tried checking if you have AHCI enabled?? It makes a BIG difference with actual usage and synthetic benchmarks. I know I notice a difference without AHCI(actually, I can't really stand it), it may be even a bigger thing with G2.

Don't let people tell you otherwise, with G1 and firmware update plus AHCI or G2 with AHCI you don't need trim...

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

taltamir: True, my old 7200 RPM drive gets around 1MB random read/write. It's just that other benchmarks are showing that intel drive getting higher scores.

IntelUser2000: I don't seem to have an AHCI option in my BIOS, my motherboard is the intel 965m which uses the ICH8-M southbridge. Does that support AHCI? Couldn't find anything on Google.

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

OK, I downloaded Intel Matrix Storage driver and that is saying I have AHCI/Native Command Queing enabled. But same benchmark results.

IntelUser2000: What CPU/speed are you using with your SSD?

 

[taltamir]

go into the BIOS and make sure it is set to AHCI in the bios

 

[IntelUser2000]

10MB/s on CrystalDiskMark with an Intel drive is quite horrible. CrystalDiskMark is a terrible bench because it only tests a small portion of the drive(100MB or 1000MB) and it also shows the highest of the 5 scores as the final score, which is absolutely retarded.

I use Core 2 Duo E6600 on the desktop with X25-M G1 80GB. I get 55MB/s on the same 4KB write, and 19MB/s on the 4KB read.

Again, your speed is HORRIBLE. Ask itself if its dead.

Better yet, maybe you need to RMA it or something. Something is seriously wrong with your config/drive.

 

[shabby]

Ahci won't make a difference, in ide mode i was getting the normal 50-60mb speeds in random 4k write.
Try using this benchmark http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2312540&enterthread=y
If you get the same results trying putting the drive into a desktop and see if you get the same results, i wonder if the laptop is the cause of this.

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

OK, this is interesting. I tried downclocking my CPU to around 1.6GHz (down from 2.2GHz), and it dropped the random 4K read/write almost by half:

Seq: Read 216.5 MB/s | Write 84.59 MB/s
512K: Read 162.7 MB/s | Write 82.97 MB/s
4K: Read 7.174 MB/s | Write 7.405 MB/s

I'm convinced that these insane 20-50 MB random 4K read/writes I see in benchmarks are being run on machines with hi-end intel Core i7 CPUs with DDR3.

Now I'm about to run Bitlocker in this drive to see what performance impat it has.

 

[Forumpanda]

It is quite possible that the particular benchmark program has a lot of CPU overhead, as others suggested I would test with another program.
This is why benchmark programs do not always (often) reflect real performance.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Sunday Ironfoot
OK, this is interesting. I tried downclocking my CPU to around 1.6GHz (down from 2.2GHz), and it dropped the random 4K read/write almost by half:

Seq: Read 216.5 MB/s | Write 84.59 MB/s
512K: Read 162.7 MB/s | Write 82.97 MB/s
4K: Read 7.174 MB/s | Write 7.405 MB/s

I'm convinced that these insane 20-50 MB random 4K read/writes I see in benchmarks are being run on machines with hi-end intel Core i7 CPUs with DDR3.

Now I'm about to run Bitlocker in this drive to see what performance impat it has.

I told ya, I get 55MB/s with a Core 2 Duo E6600 using 1066MHz FSB and dual channel DDR2-800. Something is wrong with your system. You don't need a high end system for it.

Or maybe it has to do with being a laptop.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: Sunday Ironfoot
OK, this is interesting. I tried downclocking my CPU to around 1.6GHz (down from 2.2GHz), and it dropped the random 4K read/write almost by half:

Seq: Read 216.5 MB/s | Write 84.59 MB/s
512K: Read 162.7 MB/s | Write 82.97 MB/s
4K: Read 7.174 MB/s | Write 7.405 MB/s

I'm convinced that these insane 20-50 MB random 4K read/writes I see in benchmarks are being run on machines with hi-end intel Core i7 CPUs with DDR3.

Now I'm about to run Bitlocker in this drive to see what performance impat it has.

I told ya, I get 55MB/s with a Core 2 Duo E6600 using 1066MHz FSB and dual channel DDR2-800. Something is wrong with your system. You don't need a high end system for it.

Or maybe it has to do with being a laptop.

This is very likely the issue. Modern Intel CPUs let the OS power management stuff change the duty cycle the CPU is running during. Every 2 microseconds it can basically switch off or on, with a 12.5%, 25%, 37.5%, 50%, 62.5%, 75%, 87.5%, or 100% duty cycle. This is in addition to clock speed adjustments.
If your CPU is almost idle and BIOS/OS is configured for maximum power saving, this means it will actually be in a sleep state for 14 microseconds out of every 16.

Try selecting either "Always on" or "High performance" in the power control panel and see if this makes a difference. Or see if you get higher disk benchmarks while running Folding @Home.

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

That's more like it!! I just hooked it up to my desktop PC and the scores are:

4K: Read 19.38 MB/s | Write 42.85 MB/s

My desktop specs are Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz (E8400), 4GB DDR3, nvidia 790i Ultra mobo.

I had only just installed Vista 64bit on the desktop and didn't have time to stick SPs and driver updates etc. on, no doubt those scores could be higher, but it's almost in line with what other benchmarks are getting (inc. IntelUser2000).

Now, on my laptop I was using Windows 7 RTM, so I'm gonna try Vista instead. Maybe the poor performance is a Win7 thing.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Sunday Ironfoot
That's more like it!! I just hooked it up to my desktop PC and the scores are:

4K: Read 19.38 MB/s | Write 42.85 MB/s

My desktop specs are Core 2 Duo 3.0GHz (E8400), 4GB DDR3, nvidia 790i Ultra mobo.

I had only just installed Vista 64bit on the desktop and didn't have time to stick SPs and driver updates etc. on, no doubt those scores could be higher, but it's almost in line with what other benchmarks are getting (inc. IntelUser2000).

Now, on my laptop I was using Windows 7 RTM, so I'm gonna try Vista instead. Maybe the poor performance is a Win7 thing.

I've read that Intel chipsets have higher throughput and I/O than the Nvidia ones. 43MB/s is still a bit low but more in line with everything.

Watch that you are also not using Power-Saving but options like Balance instead.

And I'll say it again. CrystalDiskMark is a easy way to benchmark but it sucks!

 

[taltamir]

is your laptop SATA 1 or 2?

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

Originally posted by: taltamir
is your laptop SATA 1 or 2?

Definitely SATA 2 or I wouldn't be getting 240/180 MB/s in the read tests.

The motherboard is intel 965m Express with ICH8-M southbridge.

 

[taltamir]

mmm... wasn't there some problem with that chipset? anyone remembers something more specific?

 

[Sunday Ironfoot]

OK, I've finally fixed it. Turns out there's some weird compatibility issue with using 4GB RAM on my laptop with a 64bit OS. I've posted about it here http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2326418&enterthread=y

OK, updated benchmarks:

Seq: Read 258.3 MB/s | Write 73.78 MB/s
512K: Read 201.2 MB/s | Write 66.01 MB/s
4K: Read 19.56 MB/s | Write 38.03 MB/s

Now that's much better.