new PNY Optima SSD PATHETIC numbers-why?

[dustyfan]

I just installed a new PNY Optima 240GB SSD that I bought 4 years ago (I bought it for $150 on sale,and Newegg still has it at $150!!) in an Asus m51AC (bought around the same time). I also replaced the 1T hd with a Seagate 3T and did a fresh install of Win 8.1.

It feels lightning fast! But I am getting pathetic benchmark numbers (numbers to follow).
I used the same SATA cable the old hard drive was hooked up to. BIOS and one or more of the benchmark programs say I am using ACHI. It is definately SATA III ports,since the Asus M51AC only has 6 SATA III 6GB/s ports (it is a nice little computer!). Used all the latest drivers. TRIM is enabled.

It pops! (especially compared to a nonSSD 4 year old bit-rotted Windows 8.1). I used my phone stopwatch to measure boot times from turn-on to being able to open a browser. Before the upgrade it took 3min and 50 seconds (Windows bit rot),and after the SSD fresh Win install it takes 41 seconds. Nice! That is the thing-everything is nice except the benchmarks.
I used a 1Gig video file to test it. Copying from the hard drive to the SSD took 6.1 seconds. Renamming it and the copying from the SSD to the harddrive was so fast I couldn't time it! Sweet! Browsers and programs pop up almost instantly.

Sure SEEMS fast...but:
All the benchmark programs (and I used them all!) show pathetic numbers.
People seem to put out ChrstalDiskMark results,so here are mine:
Seq (Read) 69.05 MB/s (Write) 59.05 MB/s
(the other 3 colums are low too- 10.05 and lower)

HD Tune Pro ver 5.70 says:
(Read) Min 40.8MB/s,Max 107.1MB/s,Avg 86.4MB/s,AccessTime 0.240ms,Burst Rate 37.5MB/s

All the benchmarks programs are reporting this low score,but like I said,it seems fast.I am going to follow the path of least resistance and replace the SATA cable,and if that doesn't work I'll reinstall Windows 8.1
Unless I am just missing something simpler. If it stays at this speed,I can live with bad benchmark numbers.
Computer:Asus M51AC,Intel I5-4570,bumped from 8gig to 16gig memory,6 SATA III (6GB) ports.
Thanks for any suggestions.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Could be a 2nd-gen SandForce controller on that drive (they used a controller-of-the-week scheme on them).

What I mean in more detail is, the "thing" with 2nd-Gen SandForce, was that they used compression (and encryption, before writing to the NAND), so most Windows programs, OS boots, etc., were "fast", but those weren't reflected in the benchmarks, which were decidedly mediocre.

If it "feels fast" to you, then I would just use it, and don't sweat it.

Edit: Even brand-new, those weren't considered to be "high-end" drives. If benchmark scores bother you too much, pick up a Samsung 850 EVO (before they're all gone - they've switched to the 860 series now), those always put up great benchmark numbers, and don't use compression trickery.

 

[dustyfan]

Could be a 2nd-gen SandForce controller on that drive (they used a controller-of-the-week scheme on them).

What I mean in more detail is, the "thing" with 2nd-Gen SandForce, was that they used compression (and encryption, before writing to the NAND), so most Windows programs, OS boots, etc., were "fast", but those weren't reflected in the benchmarks, which were decidedly mediocre.

If it "feels fast" to you, then I would just use it, and don't sweat it.

Edit: Even brand-new, those weren't considered to be "high-end" drives. If benchmark scores bother you too much, pick up a Samsung 850 EVO (before they're all gone - they've switched to the 860 series now), those always put up great benchmark numbers, and don't use compression trickery.

 

[dustyfan]

There doesn't to seem to be a way to see what controller is used. Back when I bought it,I knew it was a crap shoot. Sanddik controller were just becoming the "thing to have' and all the major players were shady about disclosing what controller they were using.

I knew going from any harddrive to an SSD (midlevel and above) was a major speed improvement,but I also just upgraded my whole computer and was very happy to let it sit in a box until I needed it. In the immortal words of Jerry Pournelle (RIP), my unupgraded Asus computer was "good enough". This is why It took me 4 years to install the SSD (hehehe,believe it or not,I have a nice big AOC monitor I bought along with the PNY SSD sitting in a box-I'll probably be asking questions about that soon!)

Compressed,uncompressed,controller type...any SSD should post huge benchmark numbers above any standard,consumer grade harddrive.

Like I said,I love the speed so far. If I notice the speed of the SSD declining,I will realize the pathetic benchmark numbers (the SSD has lower numbers than the harddrive) was a huge warning sign that something is not right.

I am hping and kindda doubt PNY would sell a SSD that was slower than a standard harddrive. I hope!

 

[dustyfan]

Could be a 2nd-gen SandForce controller on that drive (they used a controller-of-the-week scheme on them).

What I mean in more detail is, the "thing" with 2nd-Gen SandForce, was that they used compression (and encryption, before writing to the NAND), so most Windows programs, OS boots, etc., were "fast", but those weren't reflected in the benchmarks, which were decidedly mediocre.

If it "feels fast" to you, then I would just use it, and don't sweat it.

Edit: Even brand-new, those weren't considered to be "high-end" drives. If benchmark scores bother you too much, pick up a Samsung 850 EVO (before they're all gone - they've switched to the 860 series now), those always put up great benchmark numbers, and don't use compression trickery.

 

[dustyfan]

I'm sorry,I just reread your post. You are more or less saying what my rational brain is saying. "If it is working,don't sweat it". This was my plan,but the OCD irrational part of my brain downloaded every SSD benchmark program,watched every YouTube Video,read every article,and scrutinized every comment on every board-even Chinese forums (yeah,I had to learn Mandarin!) .
So,your saying ask my Doctor for some medication and don't worry unill (IF) my SSD slows down?
Great advice! Thanks!
(In the mean time,I am enjoying this SSD! This is what I wanted from a computer since my TS1000 2 Kb days.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I am hping and kindda doubt PNY would sell a SSD that was slower than a standard harddrive. I hope!

I'll be honest with you - you only quoted Seq. transfer benchmarks in your post, and a SandForce 2nd-Gen SSD, with Async NAND, possibly on a SATAII port, running an incompressible benchmark load, likely WILL BE SLOWER than a modern, say, 4TB HDD.

But seq. transfers are NOT why an SSD "feels fast". It's the low, low latency per I/O., and the much better random I/O performance.

If you benchmark with something that shows IOPS, like Anvil, the SSD should come out WAY ahead.

 

[dustyfan]

I wasn't kidding-when it comes to computers,I get obssive. I downloaded and ran probably every SSD benchmark program out there (I was saddened to see SiSandra grew a bad case of feature bloat-it may tell you eveything you want to know,but finding the info in their confusing, muddled interface is now a challenge).
BTW VirtualLarry,thanks for your help!
here is a pick of Anvil with Crystal. Anvil is saying 48 IOPS read and 38 IOPS write.
(I'm a newbie at this forum,so I hope the pic uploads)
(Nope. Can't figure out how people upload images short of going to a different website,joining,yadda yadda.)
Here's Anvil IOPS:
READ Seq 4MB=48.00,4KQD4=273.91, 4KQD16=385.42, 32K=136.30, 128K=129.59

WRITE Seq 4MB=38.10, 4K=343.20, 4KQD4=-351.30,4KQD16=291.25

They are the IOPS. If I could upload this screenshot it would be easier. There is more info here like "Compression 100% (Incompessable") I have no idea what that means.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Is that the HDD IOPS? Because 273 IOPS for 4KQD4, seems way low for an SSD.

Higher-end SSDs should be capable of 30,000-90,000 IOPS (on a SATA6G conection).

Hate to tell you, but you might be right, sounds like a bum drive.

Edit: Oh, btw, in order to LINK images here on AT Forums, you first need to UPLOAD them to an IMAGE HOSTING SERVICE. I personally use PostImage, but there are others.

Then you link the forum code, or use (IMG) and (/IMG) (replace parens with brackets) around the image link URL.

 

[dustyfan]

[url=https://postimg.org/image/6j4ry28pb/][/URL]Your right,my bad. I have lots of screenshots of lots of benchmark progs. Good Eye. Even better brain!
I'm going to try the image thing. If it is too small or you have trouble seeing it,watch the next post. I'll look at it with 5 different browsers (did I mention I have OCD?)

 

[dustyfan]

[url=https://postimg.org/image/mjxdaujdr/][/URL]

 

[VirtualLarry]

Still, yes, that does seem slow, for an SSD. 2,500 IOPS is certainly fast enough to seem "faster" than a HDD, for random access, but you're still missing an order of magnitude of performance in IOPS.

 

[dustyfan]

[url=https://postimages.org/][/URL]

[url=https://postimages.org/][/URL]

 

[dustyfan]

some more...

 

[VirtualLarry]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/SingleProductReview.aspx?reviewid=4984334

 

[XavierMace]

Secure Erase it and update the firmware (if newer is available).

https://www.newegg.com/Product/SingleProductReview.aspx?reviewid=4984334

I know you have a thing for those drives Larry, but since he's unhappy with his current low end drive it seems unwise to recommend another low end drive even if it is faster than his current low end drive.

 

[VirtualLarry]

No, I was pointing out a review that contained IOPS benchmarking data from a "normal, budget" drive. To compare with the IOPS of his. Not to tell him he should buy one of those.

 

[XavierMace]

OK, well that wasn't terribly clear since you posted a link to NewEgg instead of an actual review site. I generally consider NewEgg reviews to be like YouTube comments. Only read when drunk.

 

[IntelUser2000]

You sure you have the Intel Chipset Installation Utility and Rapid Storage drivers installed? I know they can make a big difference on Intel systems.