• 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.

SSD speed/performance tester?

B

BAD311

Member
Several weeks ago someone on here or another forum posted a screenshot of their SSD benchmarks, the program, to my knowledge, was called SSD Tester. It showed the READ and WRITE speeds and other useful info... Now I cannot find the program.

I want to test my OCZ 120GB Vertex 3 drive.

Any recommendations (with links if possible)?

Thanks!
 
While I'm cool with benchmarks, over doing it is not a good idea IMO. It only serves to wear out drives faster and create more data that needs trimmed.

Besides, you know your drive is fast, you know what it benchmarks at. And unless anything drastic changes (firmware/controller), there's no reason to keep doing so.
 
Yeah.. Anvil's Bench is pretty nice. Seem's to be catching on fairly slowly though and needs more attn/dedicated threads to get the word out. :thumbsup:

And Lotheron is right on target. Too much benchmarking just writes random/incompressible test trash to the drive to leave you with limited amounts of fresh block availability. Then when you add the fact that Sandforce drives still use a fairly lazy TRIM recovery process?(most is done during GC rather than on-the-fly unless immediately needed to avoid read write modify)... it can be very bad for consistency and even lead to throttling. Not nearly as bad or long lasting as the previous SATA2 SF drives.. but throttling nonetheless.

GC is still King for a Sandforce controlled drive.
 
Last edited:
What is really nice about it is it uses real data, and data compression profiles.
Click to expand...
I'll check it out.

It seems SF made us aware that there is a difference between compressed & non-compressed files.

Just seems to me they made it a point because they wanted their drives to have that moniker of 'Fastest'.

Looks to be a valid point of comparision brought on by bullshit advertising.🙂
 
Old Hippie said:
I'll check it out.

It seems SF made us aware that there is a difference between compressed & non-compressed files.

Just seems to me they made it a point because they wanted their drives to have that moniker of 'Fastest'.

Looks to be a valid point of comparision brought on by bullshit advertising.🙂
Click to expand...


while some of that may be true.. are you saying that Anand's test's are all bogus? Real world results speak louder than any benchmark ever will and these drives are no slouch's despite the "slower than others" incompressible write speeds. Surely you can imagine that the compression engine is making up for lost time if it can still best many/most/all other SSD's on the market when it comes to the actual workflow and time to completion for a task?

I usually look at it like this. People who don't use compression.. typically convince themselve's that it's all hype whereas the one's who utilize it?.. see the picture quite clearly. Well.. as long as the drive is behaving and not making their live's miserable in the process. Hard to call a drive faster than the rest if it's disappearing from the bios, eh? lol
 
Last edited:
Old Hippie said:
I didn't say anything that wasn't true. 🙂
Click to expand...

LOL... I didn't either. I've used enough other SSD controller's with real tasks and data that I know how they rate regardless of what people think about compression's ability to cheat benchmarks. Nuff said.

and around this joint?.. "TRUTH".. seem's to be a state of mind rather than actual data(or even firsthand experience for that matter. Who knew it was so easy to figure this stuff out without actually owning or even testing firsthand. 😀
 
Who knew it was so easy to figure this stuff out without actually owning or even testing firsthand.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

And I'm not fond of those who's knowledge is nothing more than reading but I've had a pair of OCZ drives and they didn't hold a candle to my Intel G2s in my desktop usage even though the OCZs had much better specs.

I'm sure that many find OCZ just fine but I'm not one of them. 🙂
 
everything is compressed these days - heck even sql server can compress itself now. all osx objects (page/hiber/binaries) are all compressed to heck (updates are huge).
 
Emulex said:
everything is compressed these days - heck even sql server can compress itself now. all osx objects (page/hiber/binaries) are all compressed to heck (updates are huge).
Click to expand...
And I use every single one of those things in my daily desktop experience. 🙄
 
well there you have it. probably why a Sandforce sucks for your usage model then. Is de-de-duplication even a word? LOL

The G2 didn't treat me as well. Course.. I never gave them ample opportunity by bring up the write speeds with 6 of them in R0. Only made it to 2 before returning them. lol

So,.. like anything else in life.. it seem's that SSD experience is just as subjective and generalizations are about as good as we can do when speaking about them. Unless a specific model is given when asked for SSD rec's, I suppose.
 
well there you have it. probably why a Sandforce sucks for your usage model then.
Click to expand...
Then maybe SF/OCZ should be promoting their products for applications that will show their great performance to other avenues rather than desktop users?

Just seems logical since SF/OCZ drives don't perform well in a normal desktop situation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top