Old 10-06-2012   #1
MyCE Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chula Juna CA
Posts: 309
Weird SSD Score

This is weird!

I got a Kingston Hyper X 90GB SSD yesterday for my thing PC and it is very fast. The Windows splash doesn't even come together on boot. So I run a bench mark tool and this is almost 1/2 the score my M4 gets but this thing is faster than that. The PC is as fast as my PC but the low scores do bother me a bit. I did Sean's guide for SSD drive on both of my PC's and changed SATA cables. It is hooked into SATA3 port 0 (nice white one) Any ideas? Should I try a different benchmark tool? If so which one?
Attached Images
 
__________________
My PC: MSI MPOWER Z97 Intel I5 4690k. CoolerMaster Hyper 212. 16GB Crucial Ballistix 1866mhz.
Samsung EVO 250GB OS, WD 1TB Blue SATA3 Stuff, WD 1TB Black Movies
2 EVGA GTX970 ASUS VH232H 23" Full HD 1080p LCD
Cooler Master HAF 922M. CORSAIR HX-1050W.
Burners Pioneer BDR-206DBK, AD-7241S, LG BH12LS38

The Thing: Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3. Intel Core I5-2400. CoolerMaster Hyper TX3. Kingston HyperX 90GB SSD OS. Seagate 250GB SATA3 HDD Storage. 8GB DDR3 1333 Corsair. CoolerMaster Elite 343. ThermalTake Toughpower XT 775W. HP LA2205WG. LG BH12LS38

The Boy's PC: Gigabyte Z68X-UD3-B3 Intel Core I5 2500K, Cooler Master Hyper TX3, 16GB Corsair Vengeance @1600mhs
Samsung EVO 250GB, WD 500gb SATA-1 pictures and music
EVGA GTX560TI, HP LA2205WG
Corsair TX750, Thermaltake Matrix Silver Case
Optiarc 7200s
mrloren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012   #2
Dee
Senior Administrator and Reviewer
 
Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,016
Re: Weird SSD Score

That's about in the ball park for a SandForce based SF-2281 SSD at that capacity.
Remember the smaller capacity drives are slower than the higher capacity drives.

For SF-2281 based SSDs, the 240GB drives are the fastest.
__________________
We came to wreck everything and ruin your lives, God sent us

MyCE SSD Reviews

To become a member of MyCE.com just click here to join
The Forum Rules | The SSD FAQ | The NEC/Optiarc F.A.Q. | Liggy & Dee's NEC/Optiarc Firmware Page
Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012   #3
Senior Moderator
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the present, the past was so long ago...
Posts: 7,453
Re: Weird SSD Score

Are you using it as a boot drive? You only get the really high scores on data drives.
__________________

It's been at least 2 years, 5 months, 6 days, 11 hours, 52 minutes and 35 36 37 seconds since I had a sig...
(but who's counting?)
olyteddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012   #4
MyCE Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chula Juna CA
Posts: 309
Re: Weird SSD Score

Yes it is a boot drive.

It does get a 7.9 Windows score and it boots faster than my PC. The windows splash screen does not even come together It's post BAM windows, the rest of the PC operation is on par with my PC.

Funny, when I pulled the two old drives out after hours of backing them up I thought they were 2006 era drives. the 160 was from 2004 and the 320 was from 2005. Why I never upgraded the HDD I will never know. Now it's a fast little box good for a few more years.
__________________
My PC: MSI MPOWER Z97 Intel I5 4690k. CoolerMaster Hyper 212. 16GB Crucial Ballistix 1866mhz.
Samsung EVO 250GB OS, WD 1TB Blue SATA3 Stuff, WD 1TB Black Movies
2 EVGA GTX970 ASUS VH232H 23" Full HD 1080p LCD
Cooler Master HAF 922M. CORSAIR HX-1050W.
Burners Pioneer BDR-206DBK, AD-7241S, LG BH12LS38

The Thing: Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3. Intel Core I5-2400. CoolerMaster Hyper TX3. Kingston HyperX 90GB SSD OS. Seagate 250GB SATA3 HDD Storage. 8GB DDR3 1333 Corsair. CoolerMaster Elite 343. ThermalTake Toughpower XT 775W. HP LA2205WG. LG BH12LS38

The Boy's PC: Gigabyte Z68X-UD3-B3 Intel Core I5 2500K, Cooler Master Hyper TX3, 16GB Corsair Vengeance @1600mhs
Samsung EVO 250GB, WD 500gb SATA-1 pictures and music
EVGA GTX560TI, HP LA2205WG
Corsair TX750, Thermaltake Matrix Silver Case
Optiarc 7200s
mrloren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2012   #5
New Member
 
PC_User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 15
Re: Weird SSD Score

that's not bad for that test , again it depends how full the drive is. you can try
CrystalDiskMark on 0 fill for sandforce and it will get a little better score
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1c [2012/02/12] http://crystalmark.info/download/index-e.html
__________________
CPU: i5 2500K @4.5ghz/1.30v
CPU Cooler: Phantek
Mobo:Gigabyte P67-UD5-B3
MEM: Gskill RipjawsX @2164
PSU: Seasonic X1050
Graphics: SLI- MSI gtx560ti TFII/OC Edition
Monitor:27"HP 2710m x2
Drives: 2x PlextorM3 Pro 256gb SSD Raid0 /Ocz Vertex2 80gb SSD /VisionTek 120GB SSD
Verbatium 120Gb SSD/Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB SSD
Case: mod Rocketfish
OS's: Win 7x64 SP1
Mouse:Mionix Naos 5000
KB: Max Keyboard Nighthawk x8 Cherry browns w/ red leds
PC_User is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2012   #6
Administrator & Reviewer
 
Wombler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 12,781
Re: Weird SSD Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee View Post
That's about in the ball park for a SandForce based SF-2281 SSD at that capacity.
Remember the smaller capacity drives are slower than the higher capacity drives.

For SF-2281 based SSDs, the 240GB drives are the fastest.
Out of curiosity Dee, why are the smaller ones slower?


Wombler
__________________
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Forum Help: Forum Rules, Myce Help Centre
If you find these forums useful then: Register Here
DVDFab/ImgBurn: Choosing the correct Layer Break Position in ImgBurn
DVDFab: BDMV-REC Supported Burners
Reviews: Ideal DVD Copy, Magic DVD Copier, DVDFab DVD Copy v9

Wombler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2012   #7
Dee
Senior Administrator and Reviewer
 
Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,016
Re: Weird SSD Score

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombler View Post
Out of curiosity Dee, why are the smaller ones slower?


Wombler
NAND density.

Take a the SandForce SF2281 controller, it has eight channels to access the NAND array. Notice I say array, as an SSD is like several HDDs in RAID 0.

NAND is quite slow, for example 133MB/s per die, but if you can run the dies in parallel, and use all eight channels of the controller you get higher throughput. So let's say you have 16 NAND dies on a 240GB SandForce SF2281 based SSD, then you can make sure all 8 channels are utilised more or less all of the time. The data is stripped across several dies, just like it would be in an HDD RAID 0 array.

You also have several NAND dies stacked on a single NAND chip, and again you can use greater parallelism.

In smaller capacity SSDs you have less NAND chips, and perhaps less stacked NAND dies. You could still have the same performance as the higher capacity SSDs, but this would cost more, and the SSD would no longer be competitively priced.

It's a bit more complex than this, but in essence, that is why lower capacity SSD are generally slower than their higher capacity counterparts.

Different controllers have different sweet spots.
SandForce SF2281 is 240GB
Marvell is 256GB and 512GB
Samsung is 256GB (i think)
Everest and Everest 2 is 512GB, but by employing a rather clever FTL (Flash Translation Layer), the latest Vertex 4 for example is quite close between the capacities.
__________________
We came to wreck everything and ruin your lives, God sent us

MyCE SSD Reviews

To become a member of MyCE.com just click here to join
The Forum Rules | The SSD FAQ | The NEC/Optiarc F.A.Q. | Liggy & Dee's NEC/Optiarc Firmware Page
Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2012   #8
Administrator & Reviewer
 
Wombler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 12,781
Sorry for the delay in responding Dee but that's a wonderful explanation.

I've another question though and apologies in advance if this is obvious query to someone in the know.

As capacities rise in the future, possibly into the multi GB zone, how scalable is this effect?

Or in other words will we see a bottleneck develop beyond a certain size where the channels become fully saturated?


Wombler
__________________
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Forum Help: Forum Rules, Myce Help Centre
If you find these forums useful then: Register Here
DVDFab/ImgBurn: Choosing the correct Layer Break Position in ImgBurn
DVDFab: BDMV-REC Supported Burners
Reviews: Ideal DVD Copy, Magic DVD Copier, DVDFab DVD Copy v9

Wombler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2012   #9
Dee
Senior Administrator and Reviewer
 
Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,016
The limits at the moment is the speed of the NAND itself.
Late this year or early next year ONFI3 NAND should start to appear, with a max data transfer rate of 400MB/s. When that appears the bottle neck will be the SSD controller, and of course SATA 3.

I have a feeling that with ONFI3 NAND, things may even themselves out across the different capacities. We'll have to wait and see.
__________________
We came to wreck everything and ruin your lives, God sent us

MyCE SSD Reviews

To become a member of MyCE.com just click here to join
The Forum Rules | The SSD FAQ | The NEC/Optiarc F.A.Q. | Liggy & Dee's NEC/Optiarc Firmware Page
Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2012   #10
Administrator & Reviewer
 
Wombler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 12,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee View Post
We'll have to wait and see.
Indeed, and that's all very interesting to know.


Wombler
__________________
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Forum Help: Forum Rules, Myce Help Centre
If you find these forums useful then: Register Here
DVDFab/ImgBurn: Choosing the correct Layer Break Position in ImgBurn
DVDFab: BDMV-REC Supported Burners
Reviews: Ideal DVD Copy, Magic DVD Copier, DVDFab DVD Copy v9

Wombler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2012   #11
MyCE Resident
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,754
Ok so more dies in the SSD makes them faster provided you have a die for each available channel on the controller (unless/until) someone comes up with a controller with more channels)...

and until then there is a limit on "larger" (beyond what size?)
drives being faster because they are larger...

So it's HOW the drive is made "larger" (more dies) rather than
the actual capacity of the dies that is more important for "Speed"?

Am I getting that right?
__________________
If you become annoyed with an electronic device and soothe the animal side of your nature by smashing it with a hammer some will say that you are ruled by that "animal side", However the Cerebral side that "holds the leash" of your animal side understands the basic reality that once smashed that annoying POS will never irritate you again.... it is only serendipity that you also rid yourself of some repressed rage in the process...
AllanDeGroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2012   #12
Dee
Senior Administrator and Reviewer
 
Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 14,016
At the moment, 2 NAND dies per channel is optimum, then you can do interleaving.

I try to explain it better in the SSD FAQ
__________________
We came to wreck everything and ruin your lives, God sent us

MyCE SSD Reviews

To become a member of MyCE.com just click here to join
The Forum Rules | The SSD FAQ | The NEC/Optiarc F.A.Q. | Liggy & Dee's NEC/Optiarc Firmware Page
Dee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question: How to reinstall O/S in an SSD? (OCZ Apex Series 250GB SATA II 2.5" SSD) tiago1982 Solid State Drives (SSD), Hard Drives (HDD) and NAS 13 29-11-2011 06:42
The SSD Review Black Friday SSD Giveaway! CyberMan969 Living Room 0 25-11-2011 23:10
RAIDing the SSD: Intel's 32GB SLC SSD Kenshin Solid State Drives (SSD), Hard Drives (HDD) and NAS 4 06-01-2009 10:29
when does your quality score go down? CdMonster BenQ / Philips Writer 16 01-06-2005 07:07


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 20:08.
Top