Post your AS SSD scores

[techs]

Core i5-3750k@stock, Biostar TZ77B
Samsung 830 128Gb. SSD

 

[kleinkinstein]

 

[techs]

/\
I guess thats the difference between the 120 Gb and the 140 Gb. I didn't think it would be so large.

 

[sep]

Guys the S.830 is looking nice. I end up getting an I.330. Mine shows 1024k - Ok, but yours both say 103424 k. What is this?

Techs - Yours is using IRST where Klien. is using MSahci that might be the difference too.

 

[techs]

Guys the S.830 is looking nice. I end up getting an I.330. Mine shows 1024k - Ok, but yours both say 103424 k. What is this?

Techs - Yours is using IRST where Klien. is using MSahci that might be the difference too.

On my other ssd's Iastor always gave better results so I just put it in without thinking.

Oh, and I noticed that the offset number changed recently when I did a few ssd installs.

I think it might be either because I am using Win7 SP1, or a function of the newer ssd's. Checking the web it says its normal and that the green means its correct.

 

[techs]

I uninstalled the RST and tried it on msachi and it is just a tiny tad better:

 

[Jocelyn84]

New M5P in my Samsung Laptop. I wish I still had my SFF system for testing.

M3 (Sata II)

 

[techs]

Damn, those Plextors can put up some numbers.

 

[imusorka]

Looks like there really is no point in getting an 830 with larger capacity.

 

[Jocelyn84]

Damn, those Plextors can put up some numbers.

Run Prime 95 on a single thread and bench again

 

[sep]

I uninstalled the RST and tried it on msachi and it is just a tiny tad better:

Techs...how did you do that so easy. I have a post out here that I can't switch back to msachi. Did you do anything special?

 

[techs]

Techs...how did you do that so easy. I have a post out here that I can't switch back to msachi. Did you do anything special?

Just went into Programs and Features and uninstalled Intel Rapid Storage and rebooted.

 

[Burner27]

 

[Engineer]

Dual Samsung 830 - 256GB in Raid 0 on Biostar P67 (boo - no TRIM) board.

 

[HendrixFan]

A few generations old, but RAID is helping it keep up with the newer drives.

 

[Mir96TA]

 

[sep]

my access time (ms) is way to HIGH!

 

[mcteague]

New M5P in my Samsung Laptop. I wish I still had my SFF system for testing.

M3 (Sata II)

Hi Jocelyn,

Noticed you upgraded to MP5 recently. See at Newegg for $249: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tor-_-20249027

Would you recommend? Noticed you have two in your system? What else did you replace besides the 1TB HD?

Thanks!

 

[Emulex]

hold up i'll go setup 16 slc drives in raid-0 across 4 9260-8i's (no cachecade/fastpath ). give me a week. Got 4 830's I could try as well.

 

[Garming]

Kingston Hyperx 3k 120gb. Pretty good for 55 dollars.

 

[AdamK47]

256GB Vertex 4. Intel RST Enterprise on X79.

 

[postmortemIA]

intel 2nd gen here, oh well

 

[mrpiggy]

-->Edit for following comments. When I say Intel fakeRAID I only mean software versus real hardware RAID, not that the RAID itself is fake in anyway.



Something is going on with your numbers. Samsung's are great drives, but they don't do near that well as your numbers suggest in RAID0 or any other configuration. Namely your writes are (especially the 4K) are 3 times greater than anyone else's on the Internet (or even anyone else on these pages) .

Unless you have magic drives or a magic controller, your numbers are wrong where an "Intel" fakeRAID can beat $800+ LSI dual ROC caching drive controllers and 4+ intel SSD's in RAID0 (storagereview.com). And yes I also have a LSI 9265 with four SSD's in RAID0 and it doesn't post numbers that good.

The "best" I've ever seen 830's in single drive mode in a real system (re: not pure BM test platform) AS SSD 4k write scores is in the 80's for 4K writes in AS SSD. Two of them in RAID0 is not going to magically jump the numbers of two drives in RAID0 over two to three times a single drive

Basically your write numbers are wayyyy out of whack.. Anand's review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4863/the-samsung-ssd-830-review/3)shows the 830 512GB at about 350MB/s AS SSD incompressible data max sequential write speed for a single drive and yours with two is doing "over" double what a single drive can do. Sorry Intel's FakeRAID can not even exactly double single drive performance in RAID0 in addition to another 22% your seq number of 787MB/s shows...Didn't pay attention to your read speeds, although I suspect they are whacked too if the write side is so off of expected values..

Dual Samsung 830 - 256GB in Raid 0 on Biostar P67 (boo - no TRIM) board.

 

[Engineer]

-->Edit for following comments. When I say Intel fakeRAID I only mean software versus real hardware RAID, not that the RAID itself is fake in anyway.



Something is going on with your numbers. Samsung's are great drives, but they don't do near that well as your numbers suggest in RAID0 or any other configuration. Namely your writes are (especially the 4K) are 3 times greater than anyone else's on the Internet (or even anyone else on these pages) .

Unless you have magic drives or a magic controller, your numbers are wrong where an "Intel" fakeRAID can beat $800+ LSI dual ROC caching drive controllers and 4+ intel SSD's in RAID0 (storagereview.com). And yes I also have a LSI 9265 with four SSD's in RAID0 and it doesn't post numbers that good.

The "best" I've ever seen 830's in single drive mode in a real system (re: not pure BM test platform) AS SSD 4k write scores is in the 80's for 4K writes in AS SSD. Two of them in RAID0 is not going to magically jump the numbers of two drives in RAID0 over two to three times a single drive

Basically your write numbers are wayyyy out of whack.. Anand's review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4863/the-samsung-ssd-830-review/3)shows the 830 512GB at about 350MB/s AS SSD incompressible data max sequential write speed for a single drive and yours with two is doing "over" double what a single drive can do. Sorry Intel's FakeRAID can not even exactly double single drive performance in RAID0 in addition to another 22% your seq number of 787MB/s shows...Didn't pay attention to your read speeds, although I suspect they are whacked too if the write side is so off of expected values..

Don't know what to say. I thought that this was normal. Maybe write caching by Windows 7?

Here is the Crystal disk benchmark:

Atto scores:

EDIT: Here are the scores with write caching turned off (matches what you describe now):

 

[Shmee]

Just ran this on the new mobo/CPU. I didn't need to reinstall windows, and I was just downloading armored kill from origin, which may explain if the numbers seem low. Still, an improvement over sata II.