OCZ Vertex 2 Slow Speeds

[RandomSanity]

So I recently took the plunge and installed windows 7 to a nice new OCZ Vertex 2 and was extremely unimpressed by the speeds, this thing feels slower than my old 5200rpm samsung.

I ran AS SSD benchmark and confirmed a lousy score compared to what others with this drive have.

Score: 52, 135, 222

Does anyone have any recommendations on why this might be the case?

Thanks!

 

[grimpr]

Read this first.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...Vertex2)-expected-Benchmarks-and-General-Info

 

[RandomSanity]

Read this first.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/f...Vertex2)-expected-Benchmarks-and-General-Info

Are you referring to the write caching? I have that disabled of course and the performance of my drive is abysmal compared to these others.

 

[HendrixFan]

Benchmarking the SSD degrades performance until GC has time to fix the drive. AS-SSD is the most painful of any benchmark tool.

 

[RandomSanity]

Benchmarking the SSD degrades performance until GC has time to fix the drive. AS-SSD is the most painful of any benchmark tool.

Can you please elaborate? My performance is very poor and I will stop benchmarking if there is a solution available. I am getting less than a third of the speeds most users see on this drive.

 

[HendrixFan]

Can you please elaborate? My performance is very poor and I will stop benchmarking if there is a solution available. I am getting less than a third of the speeds most users see on this drive.

It was in the link grimpr provided. Read around those OCZ forums and you will learn alot.

 

[RandomSanity]

It was in the link grimpr provided. Read around those OCZ forums and you will learn alot.

That is the problem, I have read all that prior to installing the drive and have followed all of the steps exactly. They actually recommended benchmarking the drive and I have done so and found very poor performance compared to others.

 

[Tsavo]

Can you please elaborate? My performance is very poor and I will stop benchmarking if there is a solution available. I am getting less than a third of the speeds most users see on this drive.

Don't run benchmarks.

Post from the link:

Here is the thing, if you hammer the driver with say enough writes that the drive would under normal use/see in 7 days within a few hrs, the drive will slow down for 7 days, maybe longer. It does this to protect the nand life. So your guys seeing a 50% drop may actually see 30% which is the normal drop, then a further 20% because at some stage they have hammered the drive and then not realised its going to take 5 days or longer for the speed to creep back up. Also remember this write quantity slowdown is further impacted by how you use the drive after you have hammered it."





​

 

[grimpr]

Try the benchmark OCZ and Corsair recommends for SF Controller drives,ATTO, and post here. You could also copy paste some Winsat numbers, open a cmdline and run winsat disk. Crystaldiskmark and AS-SSD are NOT suitable for SandForce drives, dont run them.

 

[RandomSanity]

Sorry, I was thrown off by the hundreds of AS-SSD benchmarks posted on the official OCZ forums. So ALL of these people should be experiencing less than 50% speeds? Why then can they run repeated benchmarks receiving speeds of over 250mb/s while I can't run one and get over 110mb/s I simply have trouble understanding this.

Try the benchmark OCZ and Corsair recommends for SF Controller drives,ATTO, and post here. You could also copy paste some Winsat numbers, open a cmdline and run winsat disk. Crystaldiskmark and AS-SSD are NOT suitable for SandForce drives, dont run them.

ATTO will not have the same negative effects on the drives?

Thanks.

 

[tweakboy]

Im in the same boat with my HDD Now even with 512k I get low benchmark scores. But initially when I converted from 4KB to 5k I got high scores. Now if only I can change cluster back to 4KB then change that again to 512k would might fix my problems. I use Partition Wizard and it says not enough free space. Is there a app that doesnt care how much space you have and can change me from 512k to 4KB then back to 512k and see if I regain my speed.

@4KB

At 512k cluster

 

[RandomSanity]

Very similar to my results You have any idea what is wrong? Bad batch maybe?