# Post your HDD and SSD Speeds!



## satindemon4u (Sep 10, 2011)

*SSD TESTERS:*When testing use HDTune! - Thanks cadaveca
*HDD TESTERS:* If you could also use HDtune that would be great. With the results from ATTO I have to sit and find your averages. This is not a MUST, just appreciated.
*ALL TESTERS:*The table of comparisons will now be split into categories. These will be, HDD's, HDD's in RAID, SSD's, SSD's in RAID. This is simply so that someone running one HDD isn't being compared to someone running a couple SSD's in RAID. 

Hello all! Recently I posted my old HDD speed for discussion under a post. Afterwards I ordered a new HDD that was recommended to me and then I tested that one and posted it as well. Soon after someone decided to post there speed as well .

So I got an idea. Why not have a thread devoted to showing off your HDD speed! Maybe even your SSD speed 

So what do you need to post?

A screenshot of your HD Tune Test
OR
A screenshot of your ATTO test
Name of your HDD or SSD
Simple specs of your HD or SSD

Note: Both tests do not need to be done.

I'll start...

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB










The following is a list of results from everyone that has posted thus far. In order from fastest average transfer speed, to the slowest.

HDD Name - Minimum Rate* - Maximum - *Average* - User (min, max, and averages are in MB/sec)

*SSD's*



Samsung SM951 128GB - 1783 - 2642 - *2212.5 *- RejZoR (NOTE: This drive is setup to excel in READ speeds, not write)
Crucial MX200 500GB – 503 -517 – *510* – xkm1948
Mushkin Triactor 240GB – 472.9 – 510.6 –*491* - Komshija
Crucial M4 256GB – 315.2 – 526.0 – *486.1* Psychoholic
Kingston HyperX 240GB - 354.4 - 512.7 - *481.2* khemist
OCZ vertex 3 120GB SSD - 306.5 - 503.7 - *466.4* rfowler30
SanDisk 240GB SSD – 410.6 – 462.3 – *453.4 *Octopuss
Crucial M4 64GB SSD – 323.3 – 424.8 – *403.7* ChristTheGreat
Samsung 840 Evo SSD - 21.7 - 553.3 - *384.1 *- P4-630
Patriot Pyro 120GB –*375* – Caring1
Sandisk X400 256GB –*360* – Caring1
Lite-On 256GB SSD - 15.3 - 525.0 - *339.1* P4-630
Corsair Force 3 60GB SSD - 16.4 - 457.1 - *329.9* LifeOnMars
Samsung 840 EVO 500GB – 133.2 – 389.2 – *327.1 *VulkanBro
Crucial C300 64GB - 255.2 - 334.8 - *322.6* bogmali
Kingston SVP200 120GB – 152.2 – 379.7 – *309.4* BATOFF
OCZ Vertex3 120GB – 157.1 – 352.2 – *283.6* VulkanBros
OCZ Agility 3 120GB – 138.8 – 402.1 – *283.4* Laurijan
Kingston HyperX 120GB 229.6 – 354.8 – *278.4* AlienIsGOD
Crucial m4 128GB - 225.3 - 249.5 - *244.2* Inioch
Patriot Pyro 60GB - 159.7 - 269.5 - *233.9* newlife
Corsair 128GB SSD - *224.2* bogmali
OCZ Agility 3 120GB – 141.0 – 229.6 – *201.9* TheOne
Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD 145.7 - 218.0 - *199.5* - Live OR Die
Kingston SHFS37A120G 154.4 – 206.6 -*190.7* – Derek12
OCZ Agility 3 60GB – 99.9 – 237.2 – *176.2* Dos101
INTEL 60GB – 134.5 – 167.1 – *156.2 *XSI
Kingston 24GB – 4.8 – 284.7 – *148.2* Arjai
Kingston SSDnow 120GB –*140.6* – Derek12


*SSD's in RAID*



2x Samsung 840 120GB Non-EVO RAID 0 – 972.3 – 1072.8 – *1061.8 freakshow*
2x 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAXIOPS in RAID 0 - 605.9 - 1058.0 -
*1013.6* 15th Warlock
Name of SSD's not given. - 972.9 - 999.0 - *981.0* - renz
Corsair GT 120GB RAID 0 – *952.0 *CrackerJack
OCZ Vertex 5 in RAID 0 - *777.8* Wrathier
OCZ SSD 118GB x2 in RAID0 - 252.1 - 702.6 - *670.2* Winston 008
2x Agility 3 in RAID 0 on a Rocket RAID 640 PCIe 4X - 335.1 - 695.2 - *633.7* Steevo
2x Agility 3 120GB in RAID 0 – 382.9 – 1038.1 – *623.7 *mightysi
4x Microcenter 64GB SSD's (redbadged ADATA S599) in RAID0 -542.1 - 635.6 - *602.0* - Arctucas
Intel Raid 0 256GB - 525.6 - 613.9 - *597.5* – Arctucas
2x Samsung 850 1TB – 458.8 – 674.5 –*591.3* – yotano211
Intel x-25M in RAID 0 - 448.4 - 514.6 - *509.3* AsRock
2x OCZ vertex 2 60GB - 353.1 - 522.8 - *451.5* Arrakis+9
Pair of Patriot Inferno SSD's in RAID-0 - 15.4 - 446.3 - *295.8* JATownes
2 Vertex 3 120GB in RAID 0 - 254.7 - 318.2 - *281.7* Soup

*PCIE Drives*


Samsung 950 Pro 500GB –*2600*– no1yak
Samsung 950 Pro 256GB – 1138.4 – 1200.6 – *1158.7* – xvi
Intel 750 PCIE 400GB –*627 –*Arrakis+9
Intel 750 PCIE 400GB –*580* – aldo11061979
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB –*550* – P4-630


*PCIE in RAID*

1. 2x Samsung 950 Pro 256GB –*3200* – xvi



*DDR2 RamDisk*
600mb partition – *2535* satindemon4u (me)


*DDR3 RamDisk*



4GB RAMDisk – *9592* Arctucas
4GB Cache on a 200gb partition – *7249* johnspack
Samsung Green 30nm DDR3 - *6462.5* Laurijan
3GB Ramdisk - 3450.7 - 6466.2 - *6169.1* newlife
Ramdisk – *2488 - *CrackerJack
3GB Ramdisk – *2328* Morgoth
500GB HDD - *1979* Morgoth



*HDD's in RAID*



6x Velociraptor’s – 628.4 – 984.7 –*886.6*– kwikgta
4x Samsung F3 500GB RAID 0 - 281.2 - 537.0 - *442.1* Maban
4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDD's in RAID 0 in 500GB partition - 320.5 - 446.2 - *396.2* HTC
2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD's in RAID0 192.4 - 278.1 - *234.1* Millennium
3 x Seagate Savvio 10k.2 SAS in RAID0 146GB each - 131.7 - 246.2 - *202.2* repman244
2 x WB 320gb HDD in Raid 0 – 137.1 – 213.9 – *194.1* Necromancer713
AMD 2+0 Stripe/RAID0 497GB - 93.9 - 220.1 - *161.5* Romeopp
WD Raptor 150GB and WD Velociraptor 150GB Raid 0 Sata 3GB/s – 74.3 – 158.4 – *131.0* jgrahl
2 x Seagate Cheetah 10k.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0 - 77.2 - 151.3 - *121.2* repman244
2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 80GB in RAID0 - 62.9 - 139.1 - *110.4* repman244
Seagate Intern Barracuda 500GB in RAID0 - *197.3* Wrathier
2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 250GB in RAID0 - 22.6 - 102.8 - *83.8* FordGT90Concept
2 x Seagate Cheetah 10k.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0 - 77.2 - 151.3 - *121.2* repman244
2x Samsung Spinpoint M9T 2TB – 54.3 – 121.8 –*93.5* – yotano211


*HDD'S*



Not sure, took the fastest test - 15.5 - 387.1 - *214.1* theoneandonlymrk
Toshiba X300 4TB –*194.8* - Komshija
Seagate Barracuda 3TB – 146.6 – 207.1 – *180.8 *- Jetster
Seagate 7200.14 1TB – 98.6 – 222.7 – *176.9 -* 0x00000007b
Seagate ST1000DM003 1TB – 96.1 – 203.7 –*164.0 –*satindemon4u (Me)
Seagate Barracuda 2TB – 89.4 – 197.0 – *159.8* – Lunat!c
Western Digital Black 5TB (newer edition) – 84.7 – 201.6 – *151.0* – xkm1948
Hitachi Ultrastar 15K450 SAS 450GB - 95.8 - 154.1 - *132.2* repman244
WDC WD20EZRZ – 96.2 – 156.5 –*129.0* – Derek12
Samsung F4 320GB 78.5 - 151.0 - *122.4* Tatty_One
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB - 107.4 - 134.9 - *121.1* - RejZoR
Western Digital 06000 600GB - 84.8 - 139.1 - *118.0* rfowler30
SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 2TB - 67.0 - 147.7 - *116.3* Me
SAMSNG Spinpoint F3 1TB – 69.6 – 145.1 – *116.1* mightyse
Hitachi Deskstar 7k3000 2TB - 70.7 - 152.2 - *115.8* newlife
Western Digital Green WD20EARS 2TB - 66.3 - 147.7 - *114.4* Silkstone
Samsung HD502HJ – 68.6 – 139.0 – *111.5* 0x0000007b
Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB - 55.4 - 146.6 - *111.5* Jetster
Western Digital Black 640GB - 78.5 - 136.4 - *111.2* LifeOnMars
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB - 9.7 - 142.5 - *111.0* arnoo1
Seagate Barracuda Green 2TB - 59.0 - 147.6 - *109.7* - repman244
Samsung F3 2TB - 18.2 - 126.9 -*108.4* JATownes
Samsung EcoGreen F4 2TB - 63.3 - 142.0 - *108.3* Jetster
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB – 51.3 – 134.0 – *105.1 *stefanels
ST3205318AS 250GB - 65.8 - 127.5 - *105.0* Romeopp
HGST 1TB 7200rpm – 64.3 – 134.7 – *104.0 *- xvi
Toshiba MBD2147RC SAS-2 (6 GB/s) 146GB - 74.4 - 127.3 -* 103.9* repman244
SAMSUNG HD502HJ 500GB - 5.2 - 134.4 - *103.5* Silkstone
Western Digital Black 500GB Sata 3 – 62.9 – 138.1 – *102.4* james888
Western Digital WD5000 500GB - 58.1 - 126.8 - *101.5* Specks
Seagate 500GB 7200 – 56.2 131.4 – *101.3* BarbaricSoul
HDD1(ST3160813AS) 160GB 3.5 – 125.1 – *99.0* Blue-Knight
Western Digital WD5000 500GB - 57.1 - 118.6 - *95.7* Romeopp
Seagate Momentus XT 750GB – 57.2 – 122.1 – *94.8* VulkanBros
1 TB Spinpoint F3 - 52.5 - 116.5 - *93.0* HTC
Seagate 1TB - 2.8 - 117.1 - *90.6* JATownes
Seagate 320GB SATA - *82.1* bogmali
Western Digital WD2500 250GB - 49.1 - 101.6 - *81.7* Silkstone
Toshiba 500GB 7200rpm – 44.5 – 98.7 – *75.1* repman244
Western Digital Green Cav. 500GB - 43.0 - 91.3 - *72.8* de.das.dude
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB - 54.1 - 81.2 - *70.0* - repman244
Toshiba MK3265 320GB - 43.5 - 88.0 - *67.8* Derek12
Toshiba MK3265GSX – 8.2 – 89.9 –*65.0* – Derek12
WDC WD2500BEVT – 40.4 – 82.4 –*64.5* – Derek12
Samsung 500GB – 36.8 – 78.7 – *62.1 *XSI
Seagate ST3320620AS 320GB - 39.4 - 69.7 - *61.8* bogmali
Western Digital Scorpio Blue 250GB - 37.7 - 65.9 - *51.8* - Derek12
P4 Northwood PATA 160GB - 25.0 - 55.5 - *43.8* Completely Bonkers (LOL)
HDD0(ST380215A) 80GB – 21.4 – 30.7 – *30.4 *Blue-Knight



*Minimum Rates may not be totally correct. As for the people that test with bench32, I am having an issue pulling the minimum from the pictures. So I instead take the lowest number which comes from the first test within the test.


----------



## erocker (Sep 10, 2011)

FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 10, 2011)

Added to first post. Thank you good sir!


----------



## Maban (Sep 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.



I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?


----------



## dajjhman (Sep 11, 2011)

This RAMDisk benchmark is a little outdated, I am tweaking my new RAMDisk

my new one is big enough to install games to, but for now starting virtual machines with no boot splashes appearing is nice.

-Jimmy


----------



## silkstone (Sep 11, 2011)

A few of mine

Samsung - Main os drive (hence the big dips in speed)





2tb western green - media drive





250gb WD - Used as extra storage


----------



## specks (Sep 11, 2011)

Here is my main drive for everything


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

Main drive











Is a Toshiba MK3265GSX, laptop HDD in a desktop computer, 320GB, 8 MB buffer, 5400RPM, SATA II.


----------



## cheesy999 (Sep 11, 2011)

silkstone said:


> 2gb western green - media drive



shouldn't that be 2TB?


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 11, 2011)

took this off my hdd, dont know if there too impressive but i thought id contribute to this forum, seemed interesting.


----------



## Romeopp (Sep 11, 2011)




----------



## Maban (Sep 11, 2011)

If I ever get around to getting the stuff off my F3's, I'll bench all four in RAID 0. That'll be quite something.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 11, 2011)

erocker said:


> FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.



Why? (I can't find on google)   i run it on a SSD based netbook from a friend it is bad for SSD?

Many thanks


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Nice posts guys! Gonna to gather all of the information and update the first post with slowest speeds, fastest, type of HDD's, averages, all of that good stuff.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 12, 2011)

Maban said:


> I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?


Its not accurate usually. I foget the exact reasons why 9buffered spot sampling?), but HDTune/HDtach were made for mechanical drives, and not SSD's. 

Here you go: Solid State Drive technology uses wear level algorithms to ensure each DRAM modules receives equal usage, but HDD tests tools are designed to sample disk 'sectors' for performance and SSD's don't never read or write to the same sector.

Sequential test tools such as ATTO Disk Benchmark, HD-Tach, HD-Tune, Passmark PerformaceTest , CrystalDiskMark, and AS-SSD are all usable benchmarks, but occasionally report performance inconsistencies because of buffered spot sampling and NAND condition. Additionally, CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD often report much lower sequential read and write bandwidth speeds compared to HD-Tach and HD-Tune, while ATTO Disk Benchmark relies on file size chucks to report bandwidth. The sequential bandwidth speeds reported by CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD are so low they become questionable, while Passmark PerformaceTest, HD-Tach, and HD-Tune reveal very little information about buffer saturation and are prone to NAND condition impacting performance results. 

Of the sequential tools, ATTO Disk Benchmark is most preferred because it illustrates bandwidth speed results at varying file size transfers. From my testing for this article and in other projects, along with the results I've seen from the software tools used, I can conclude that ATTO Disk Benchmark has proven itself consistent in recording SSD bandwidth results and doesn't seem to have a preference for faster SSD DRAM cache mechanisms found in some SSDs. The variety of file size chunks that it tests does give a broad picture of bandwidth performance at each level. Although ATTO is not perfect and still uses spot-testing, it's less imperfect for SSD testing than many of the other alternatives.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 12, 2011)

here are mine done on me sig rig with ATTO bench

ones a 3 disk raid 0 with 3xwestern digi blue 230gb 16mb cache
the others a ocz revodrivex2 120g

View attachment 43565


----------



## arnoo1 (Sep 12, 2011)

Western Digital Caviar black 2tb sata 3 (6gb's) storage drive
sorry i don't run hd tune
i have a corsair force 3 ssd but does 350mb write 425read instead of 500mb, it's still fast though


----------



## JATownes (Sep 12, 2011)

Here is my pair of Patriot Inferno SSDs in RAID-0:






1TB Seagate for Data:






2TB Samsung F3 for Media:


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Updating list, NICE speed JA!

Doing math with those tests sucks.
Add them alllll up, divide. Ew.

EDIT: will edit the list again with your third HDD lol. Boot time with your SSD's?


----------



## JATownes (Sep 12, 2011)

Thanks.  It's not the fastest, but it is quick enough for my purposes.



satindemon4u said:


> Boot time with your SSD's?



Probably 20-30 seconds or so.  I've never really timed it, as it usually stays running all the time.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 12, 2011)

I see. Nice nice. Well I have heard of people booting at about that time.

What about loading time? As far as logging in for the first time. First time load I guess you could say.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 12, 2011)

Scary thing is I found withOUT a raid array (SSD) I boot faster. With Raid anything you have to load the raidrom/bios thing and because not a tremendous amount of loading comes from the HDD upon boot, it was actually faster in my experience. Granted, not by much, but faster.

With my single Vertex 3 I boot 19 seconds to windows...including post.


----------



## JATownes (Sep 12, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Scary thing is I found withOUT a raid array (SSD) I boot faster. With Raid anything you have to load the raidrom/bios thing and because not a tremendous amount of loading comes from the HDD upon boot, it was actually faster in my experience. Granted, not by much, but faster.
> 
> With my single Vertex 3 I boot 19 seconds to windows...including post.



I also experienced this as well.  A non-raid setup is definitely quicker to boot.  Mine is about 30 seconds to the desktop.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 12, 2011)

Egad.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 13, 2011)

EarthDog said:


> Its not accurate usually. I foget the exact reasons why 9buffered spot sampling?), but HDTune/HDtach were made for mechanical drives, and not SSD's.
> 
> Here you go: Solid State Drive technology uses wear level algorithms to ensure each DRAM modules receives equal usage, but HDD tests tools are designed to sample disk 'sectors' for performance and SSD's don't never read or write to the same sector.
> 
> ...



None of this is an issue if all you are doing is measuring READ speed. It's tests that use WRITE speed that are the problem. HDTune is F-I-N-E as a read test.

You'll find many a Hard-Disk reviewer using HDTune READ tests. Check any review site.


----------



## bbmarley (Sep 13, 2011)

here is mine lol


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 13, 2011)

or not? lol

EDIT: There it is! Can you test with HDtune? Because with those results I have to do the math to find averages lol.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 13, 2011)

wd 500gb green caviar


----------



## LifeOnMars (Sep 13, 2011)

AMD Sata AHCI

*WD 640GB Black Sata 3 - 64MB Cache*













*Corsair Force 3 60GB SSD Sata 3*


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 13, 2011)

in all honesty, ssds should be elimated from this forum scores.  most ssds will outperform a hdd any day and the title of this forum may i remind you is "post your hdd speeds".  also i just wanna be in foruth place lol.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 13, 2011)

*Samsung Spinpoint F-3 500*

Its about 2 years old. Has never had any issues 

System Drive
Samsung Spinpoint F-3 500






Storage Drive
New SAMSUNG EcoGreen F4  2TB 32MB Cache


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Sep 13, 2011)

My old, but faithful P4-Northwood running PATA HDD






But speeded up quite some years ago with iRAM vHDD.  This is where my temps and pagefile sits. It gives quite a speed boost. Keep in mind this is already a 6 year old solution, so SSD's have caught up completely. But not bad for 2005.  As you can see it is constrained by SATA1






I think the ATTO results for the small transfer size blocks might be constrained by my Pentium 4 Northwood...


----------



## HTC (Sep 13, 2011)

RAID 0 with 4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDDs, in a 500 GB partition:











RAID 10 with 4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDDs, in a 1.57 TB partition:











1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDD:


----------



## repman244 (Sep 13, 2011)

rfowler30 said:


> in all honesty, ssds should be elimated from this forum scores.  most ssds will outperform a hdd any day and the title of this forum may i remind you is "post your hdd speeds".  also i just wanna be in foruth place lol.



Well true but I think we should just have a separate table for SSD's and HDD's (Maybe: single SSD, SSD in RAID, single HDD, HDD in RAID...).

But anyway here are my results:

Hitachi Ultrastar 15K450 SAS  
(4 platters 8 heads, 16MB cache, 3.5'' 450GB 15000RPM)

(Read/write cache is disabled on the controller)





How about making a list of lowest access times for HDD's 

3 x Seagate Savvio 10k.2 SAS in RAID0 
(2 platters 4 heads, 16MB cache, 2.5'' 146GB each, 10000RPM)







Toshiba MBD2147RC SAS-2 (6Gb/s)
(1 platter 2 heads, 16MB cache,2.5'' 146GB 10000RPM)







I took the following test to show that if caching is enabled ATTO results can be affected, I didn't notice HDTune being affected by cache (only the burst speeds are affected) .


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 13, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Well true but I think we should just have a separate table for SSD's and HDD's (Maybe: single SSD, SSD in RAID, single HDD, HDD in RAID...).
> 
> 
> hugely agree, i was thinking early today that someone in techpowerup.com should make a forum specifically designed for benchmarking ssds.  thank you! id gladly par take in that.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 14, 2011)

Updating list...again. This one could take a few minutes haha.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 14, 2011)

rfowler30 said:


> in all honesty, ssds should be elimated from this forum scores.  most ssds will outperform a hdd any day and the title of this forum may i remind you is "post your hdd speeds".  also i just wanna be in foruth place lol.



Wonderful idea. Sort of had this idea myself while updating the list.

Will apply this update now!

UPDATE APPLIED!

List is now in order of fastest to slowest, as it was, but is now split into 4 different sections! SSD's, SSD's in RAID, HDD's, HDD's in RAID!


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 14, 2011)

My netbook.






Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD2500BEVT


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 14, 2011)

Derek, were you running stuff while you did the test? lol


----------



## Arctucas (Sep 14, 2011)

4x Microcenter 64GB SSD (rebadged ADATA S599) in RAID0.



















http://www.sisoftware.eu/rank2011d/...8debfdee3d5e0d6e4dcfa88b585a3c6a39eae88fbc6f6


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 14, 2011)

satindemon4u said:


> Derek, were you running stuff while you did the test? lol



No it was the only program running and I made sure the HDD was idle when I run the test, God knows why those huge dips  I think because I was running on battery I will retest tomorrow again plugged it in 


EDIT: I tried plugged it and same, must be some of the Samsung drivers or software used to improve battery life or something


----------



## repman244 (Sep 14, 2011)

Seagate Barracuda Green 2 TB (ST2000DL003) 5900RPM, 64MB cache, SATA 3


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 15, 2011)

List has been updated! Might I say holy shit to the 600MB read speed!


----------



## JATownes (Sep 15, 2011)

Arctucas said:


> 4x Microcenter 64GB SSD (rebadged ADATA S599) in RAID0.
> 
> 
> http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll305/Arctucas/SSDbenchs9-13-11.jpg
> ...



This is definitely "HOLY SHIT" worthy.  Awesome speeds man!!!!


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 15, 2011)

THATS WHAT I AM SAYING!!!!

I see you saw the HOLY SHIT next to his name on the list then? lol


----------



## Arctucas (Sep 15, 2011)

Check out the speeds here.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 15, 2011)

Arctucas said:


> Check out the speeds here.



You make me want to buy SSD's and raid them. 

I think I really need to get an SSD anyway. Just for like, booting. You know like a lot of people do.

Use it for booting and shit like that and then my 1TB HDD for everything else.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 15, 2011)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB

One of the weirdest drives I have.






2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 80GB in RAID0






2 x Seagate Cheetah 10K.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0


----------



## HTC (Sep 15, 2011)

satindemon4u said:


> *HDD TESTERS:* If you could also use HDtune that would be great. With the results from bench32 I have to sit and find your averages. This is not a MUST, just appreciated.



As requested!

RAID 0 with 4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDDs, in a 500 GB partition:








RAID 10 with 4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDDs, in a 1.57 TB partition:








1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDD:


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 15, 2011)

tested my ocz vertex 3 120gb ssd, not impressed with the write speeds but im happy with the read speeds. anyone know how to optimize the write speeds??? should i not use the marvel adapter for the mobo, because thats what im using?  ive heard marvell really isnt that great. according to this i should be getting faster read speeds as well http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1624/5/


----------



## LiveOrDie (Sep 15, 2011)

Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD (RUNNING ON SATA2)






WD VelociRaptor 300GB


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 15, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> here are mine done on me sig rig with ATTO bench
> 
> ones a 3 disk raid 0 with 3xwestern digi blue 230gb 16mb cache
> the others a ocz revodrivex2 120g



is something wrong, why is my ssd not listed yet dude 500Mb/s Revodrive x2  < ive read the list a bit better, here.


the 3xdisk raid 0 is 3x western digital caviar blues 230 Gb 16mb cache and peaks at 225Mbs read spd, file is K220fast one
the ssd is a OCZ revodrive  X2 120Gb plugged in a pciex 2x8 and is file ssd500fast



satindemon4u said:


> EDIT: There it is! Can you test with HDtune? Because with those results I have to do the math to find averages lol.



oh i read a bit more ill sort summat


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 16, 2011)

I may have skipped it for that reason. Or more than likely had to get off and never remembered to add it. However if you test and post now with HDTune I can guarantee it will get up there! 

Sorry :/


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Live OR Die said:


> Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD (RUNNING ON SATA2)
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110915/Untitled329.jpg
> 
> WD VelociRaptor 300GB
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110915/2391.jpg



Going to need you to test in HDTune if at all possible. The only reason I say that is because when I hand calculate out your average for your SSD I get like 197 mb/s. which cannot be right. I would like to not put you down for something that is wrong. 

Thanks!


----------



## LiveOrDie (Sep 16, 2011)

Why not im only running Sata 2 not 3 like the others are.

Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 16, 2011)

Oh. I guess that would do it then! Well thank you good sir!


----------



## SlayerJC (Sep 16, 2011)

Live OR Die said:


> Why not im only running Sata 2 not 3 like the others are.
> 
> Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110916/Untitled514.jpg
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110916/Untitled.png



128º


----------



## LiveOrDie (Sep 16, 2011)

SlayerJC said:


> 128º



HD Tune doesn't read SSD temps correctly.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 16, 2011)

Old drives that refuse to die...
2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 250GB on ICH10R (RAID0) - 22.6 - 102.8 - 83.8 FordGT90Concept





HA! -1.0% CPU usage.  It's going so fast, it's gone backwards.


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 16, 2011)

fordgt90concept said:


> old drives that refuse to die...
> 2 x seagate barracuda 7200.7 250gb on ich10r (raid0) - 22.6 - 102.8 - 83.8 fordgt90concept
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110916/hdtune.jpg
> 
> ha! -1.0% cpu usage.  It's going so fast, it's gone backwards. :d



lmfao!


----------



## khemist (Sep 16, 2011)

HyperX 240GB.


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 16, 2011)

retested my ocz vertex 3 ssd on the intel p67 sata III driver and what a difference in speed!!!!!!!!!!!!! marvel is a really bad sata III port.  im gonna retested my hdd too as i bet speeds will be much better with that as well.  for now heres a pic of my ssd. not much of a difference with the hdd, but still none the less a little bit better scores.


----------



## khemist (Sep 16, 2011)

Did you run that installed as c drive or clean drive?.


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 16, 2011)

i ran it as the C driver and D drive, no fresh install.  just ploped that sata III cable into the p67 intel SATA III ports for both.


----------



## khemist (Sep 16, 2011)

My ATTO speeds are fine at least, that's good enough for me.


----------



## bogmali (Sep 16, 2011)

My Crystal Disk scores:

OS Drive (Corsair 128GB SSD)






App Drive (Seagate 320GB SATA)


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 17, 2011)

List has been updated. Nice jumps fowler! Only thing is, I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say you changed something. What did you change?


----------



## rfowler30 (Sep 17, 2011)

i moved both of my 6gb sata III drivers from the marvell adapter on the asus sabertooth p67 to the INTEL sata III outlets on the motherboard, read on youtube.com and other places that ocz vertex 3 are meant for maximum speed on INTEL not marvel outputs. see where it says marvel sata 6 ports, i moved them from that and placed the sata 3 cords for my main devices into the INtel sata 6 ports


----------



## Steevo (Sep 17, 2011)

Is this fast enough?

2 120GB OCZ Agility 3 in RAID 0 on Highpoint Rocket RAID 640 Gen 3 PCIe 4X controller card


----------



## repman244 (Sep 17, 2011)

Steevo, how come there is such a massive difference between reads and writes?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Sep 17, 2011)

SSDs tend to have slower write performance than read performance because of how writing physically occurs in the drive as well as various wear-leveling technologies which extend write time.  Write times are still usually substantially faster than HDDs though.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 17, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> SSDs tend to have slower write performance than read performance because of how writing physically occurs in the drive as well as various wear-leveling technologies which extend write time.  Write times are still usually substantially faster than HDDs though.



I knew that writes are usually slower but I didn't know it was that much. Thank you for informing me, I only tried an SSD a few times on other computers but never really tested one.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 17, 2011)

Plus the Agilities don't have any cache, so writes have to occur directly to the memory, requiring all the work to be done immidiately.






Increase my speed by tweaking NB speed and disabling PCIe power control, so it stopped putting lanes to sleep when not used. Stability testing continues today. After 24 more hours I will add the second array of 2 3TB hatiachi drives in their own RAID 0, then my 2TB drive by itself to be a backup drive.


----------



## Millennium (Sep 17, 2011)

Hi, can my results for RAID hard drives be added please? 
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151739

thanks.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 18, 2011)

2) Hatachi 3TB 32MB Cache 5400RPM in RAID 0 on High Point RocketRAID 640 PCIe 4X


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 18, 2011)

Steevo said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/110916/Disk Speed.jpg
> 
> Is this fast enough?
> 
> 2 120GB OCZ Agility 3 in RAID 0 on Highpoint Rocket RAID 640 Gen 3 PCIe 4X controller card



Can you test with HDTune? I am getting an average of 266 mb/sec with that and I feel as though I would be ripping you off with a number like that.



Steevo said:


> Plus the Agilities don't have any cache, so writes have to occur directly to the memory, requiring all the work to be done immidiately.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110917/Disk Speed 1.jpg
> 
> Increase my speed by tweaking NB speed and disabling PCIe power control, so it stopped putting lanes to sleep when not used. Stability testing continues today. After 24 more hours I will add the second array of 2 3TB hatiachi drives in their own RAID 0, then my 2TB drive by itself to be a backup drive.



Again, HDTune, if possible. :/ 



Millennium said:


> Hi, can my results for RAID hard drives be added please?
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151739
> 
> thanks.



Can you test with HDTune, because I really have no way of picking out an average with that.



Steevo said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/110917/Disk Speed 3.jpg
> 
> 
> 2) Hatachi 3TB 32MB Cache 5400RPM in RAID 0 on High Point RocketRAID 640 PCIe 4X



Anddddddddddddddddddd again. LOL!


----------



## Winston_008 (Sep 18, 2011)

My ocz drives in raid 0


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 18, 2011)

Nice speed!


----------



## Steevo (Sep 18, 2011)

satindemon4u said:


> Can you test with HDTune? I am getting an average of 266 mb/sec with that and I feel as though I would be ripping you off with a number like that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HD Tune didnt saturate the bus enough and only reported 400-600MB reads for its random writes, however it did report .1 ms access time. Accessing additional media on the drive caused the full bandwidth to show up, and I tried it twice to verify. 

Average on a SSD doesnt matter, it has no average, just different efficiencies at reading and writing file sizes based on their internal storage configuration, strip size on RAID, and NTFS file size.

Once almost 3TB of data has been transfered onto the other volume and i get a chance to sort through some of it I will rebench. Right now my 750Gb barracuda is dying and has already claimed a few pictures that didn't make it inot the monthly backup onto the other 2TB drive


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 18, 2011)

D:

Alrighty!


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 18, 2011)

satindemon4u

I retested again with the netbook and there weren't any dips this time, and the minimum speed was now 37.7 MB/s

If you update the minimum speed from 1.9 to 37.7 it would be greatly appreciated

Many thanks


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 18, 2011)

No problem! 

The deed is done.


----------



## Millennium (Sep 18, 2011)

*2 * 2tb Samsung green drives raid 0*

more info here


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 18, 2011)

added.


----------



## Inioch (Sep 25, 2011)

Crucial m4 128GB

In the machine in specs.
Using Marvell 6G port with msahci driver.


----------



## Arrakis9 (Sep 27, 2011)

Really like seeing that short stroking in action HTC nice job! 

2x OCZ vertex 2 60GB - 353.1 - 522.8 - *451.5* Arrakis+9

easy copy pasta


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 27, 2011)

Updated!


----------



## khemist (Oct 5, 2011)

Could you replace my old Kingston HyperX 240GB run with this please?.






Something was up with my last run and i'm running on a different board now.


----------



## Maban (Oct 9, 2011)




----------



## AsRock (Oct 9, 2011)

OCZ Solid 3





Intel x-25m in raid 0 ( this was done some time ago )


----------



## satindemon4u (Oct 11, 2011)

UPDATED!

AsRock, I only added your last post to the list. I did that because I was hoping you could test with the other program with your SSD. That way I can post the most accurate results.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 11, 2011)

satindemon4u said:


> UPDATED!
> 
> AsRock, I only added your last post to the list. I did that because I was hoping you could test with the other program with your SSD. That way I can post the most accurate results.



people are warned about running HD Tune  that's it's bad for them so it not going happy sorry to say.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 11, 2011)

These are my results for ATTO using 2x120GBs OCZ Vertex 3 MAXIOPS in RAID 0:






And these are my results with HD Tune:






I have to ask though, after reading the warning, what's the risk of running this app with SSDs? I tried it out of curiosity, but does it reduce the life expectancy for my drives?


----------



## bogmali (Oct 11, 2011)

Crucial C300 64GB







Seagate ST3320620AS 320GB


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 11, 2011)

err..what am I doing wrong?  I have Raid 0 , but its showing up as two seprate HDDs


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 11, 2011)

heres my vertex 3 -60 gb,


----------



## satindemon4u (Oct 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> None of this is an issue if all you are doing is measuring READ speed. It's tests that use WRITE speed that are the problem. HDTune is F-I-N-E as a read test.
> 
> You'll find many a Hard-Disk reviewer using HDTune READ tests. Check any review site.





AsRock said:


> people are warned about running HD Tune  that's it's bad for them so it not going happy sorry to say.



Read that first one.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 11, 2011)

*Seagate Barracuda 1TB @ 7,200 32MB (Operating System and storage)*







*Samsung HD322HJ 320GB Raid 0 @ 7,200 16MB (Storage, Music, Editing, Games)
*


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 12, 2011)

hey alex those hdrives are  good speeds[better than mine for sure!!],are they sata 2 or 3 just out of curiosity?


----------



## satindemon4u (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> *Seagate Barracuda 1TB @ 7,200 32MB (Operating System and storage)*
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43918&stc=1&d=1318352481
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43917&stc=1&d=1318352193
> 
> ...



Re-test with HDtune please?


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

mediasorcerer said:


> hey alex those hdrives are  good speeds[better than mine for sure!!],are they sata 2 or 3 just out of curiosity?



Thank`s, they are actually SATA 3Gb/s..however (not that it makes a difference) I have them plugged into a SATA 6Gb/s cable. My ASUS Sabertooth 990FX comes with 6 of 6Gb/s SATA ports and 2 3Gb/s SATA ports (different controller). 



satindemon4u said:


> Re-test with HDtune please?



Sure, but remember the HD-Tune isn't recording my Raid 0 Driver, I don't know why? 

I don't want to update my driver to AMD Raid because its only for the 88x series and my motherboard is 990fx. I don't know if its backwards compatible. 

Here she goes one more time:


----------



## Maban (Oct 12, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Thank`s, they are actually SATA 3Gb/s..however (not that it makes a difference) I have them plugged into a SATA 6Gb/s cable. My ASUS Sabertooth 990FX comes with 6 of 6Gb/s SATA ports and 2 3Gb/s SATA ports (different controller).
> 
> Sure, but remember the HD-Tune isn't recording my Raid 0 Driver, I don't know why?
> 
> ...


You aren't using traditional RAID. You are using Windows 7's built in, entirely software, RAID. You should set it up properly. You'll get better performance.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 12, 2011)

Maban said:


> You aren't using traditional RAID. You are using Windows 7's built in, entirely software, RAID. You should set it up properly. You'll get better performance.



Isn't stripping it, RAID 0? I can install the Raid Driver, but its for 88x motherboards, mine is 990

edit: let me just ask this question, should I download the 88x Raid driver even though mine is 990? 

Thanks


----------



## Maban (Oct 12, 2011)

SB850 and SB950 are effectively identical. Make sure you have your SATA mode set to RAID in the BIOS. You'll have to reinstall Windows or do a registry hack to change it if it's not set yet.


----------



## ERazer (Oct 14, 2011)

heres my intel 510 120gb, pretty much at spec


----------



## Steevo (Oct 14, 2011)




----------



## khemist (Oct 14, 2011)

ERazer said:


> heres my intel 510 120gb, pretty much at spec
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111013/ssd.jpg



You are not using the right prog to bench.

It should be hdtune.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 14, 2011)

You are right, every other benchmark program including the "pro" version gives me over 700MBps read from my RAID array, on a dedicated card, that hundreds of others have tested, and only HD Tune free version reports odd results. 


Yep, seems legit.

Windows 7 starts in 7 seconds. 

Yep, its slow.


----------



## ERazer (Oct 14, 2011)

khemist said:


> You are not using the right prog to bench.
> 
> It should be hdtune.





erocker said:


> FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.





Maban said:


> I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?





EarthDog said:


> Its not accurate usually. I foget the exact reasons why 9buffered spot sampling?), but HDTune/HDtach were made for mechanical drives, and not SSD's.
> 
> Here you go: Solid State Drive technology uses wear level algorithms to ensure each DRAM modules receives equal usage, but HDD tests tools are designed to sample disk 'sectors' for performance and SSD's don't never read or write to the same sector.
> 
> ...



read first page


----------



## satindemon4u (Oct 14, 2011)

ERazer said:


> heres my intel 510 120gb, pretty much at spec
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/111013/ssd.jpg


Use HDTune please



khemist said:


> You are not using the right prog to bench.
> 
> It should be hdtune.



Thanks.



Steevo said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/111013/diskspeed HD Tune.jpg


Name of the SSD? Also, is that one SSD? Need to know these two things so I can post correctly. Thank you!


----------



## Steevo (Oct 14, 2011)

Same as before, two Agility 3 in RAID 0 on a Rocket RAID 640 PCIe 4X


----------



## satindemon4u (Oct 14, 2011)

updated!


----------



## Steevo (Nov 9, 2011)

Update, flashing to firmware 2.15 after a couple issues with Kernel_Data_inpage_error and windows suddenly taking minutes to load then acting normal.......they broke my drives. 


I have posted to OCZ forums to see if I will get support, however one mod is trying to blame my 640 for my issues, despite others still having or gaining these same symptoms after the new firmware has been installed.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 12, 2011)

After a chkdsk and a day off.


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Nov 12, 2011)

Crucial M4 64gb SATA III on P67






WD Black 1TB 32mb cache,  RAID 1 on SB700 ( cause on my P67 they are a bit slower)


----------



## Nordic (Nov 13, 2011)

HD Tach version 2.70
Drive: PhysicalDrive0 500.1gb
CPU utilization: 5.1%
64 zones to be tested (-833918kb zones).
Random access Time: 15.5 ms (lower is better)
Burst speed: 221.8 MB/s
Average read speed: 102.4 Mb/s
Maximum Speed: 138.1 Mb/s
Minimum Speed:  62.9  Mb/s

Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB Sata 3


----------



## MustangGT2142 (Nov 13, 2011)

Crucial M4 128gb, sata 3, 0009 firmware


----------



## TheOne (Nov 16, 2011)

*OCZ Agility 3 120GB*
_(Newegg)_

*Firmware: 2.15
SATAII* _(3.0Gb/s)_

*HD Tune Pro 5.00:*
_Run 1_





_Run 2_





*ATTO Benchmark 2.46:*

_*Write:* 259MB/s - *Read:* 277MB/s_


----------



## jgrahl (Nov 27, 2011)

Raid 0 1x WD Raptor 150GB 10k RPM and 1x WD Velociraptor 150GB 10K RPM SATA 3Gb/s





Raid 0 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3500630AS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3Gb/s





Maxtor OneTouch 4 Mini 250GB


----------



## stefanels (Nov 27, 2011)

*Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500Gb (main drive)*












*Samsung HD103SJ 1Tb (storage drive)*


----------



## LiveOrDie (Dec 14, 2011)

Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD Sata 3


----------



## Grnfinger (Dec 22, 2011)

2x60GB Vertex II Raid0


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jun 25, 2012)

Necro  

Force GT 180GB RAID0


----------



## Millennium (Jun 25, 2012)

I was going to say that seems a bit slow - then I realised it's 1000mb/s not 100 lol! nice result. is it fast? :]


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jun 25, 2012)

Its decent, goes from bios to windows ,you see flashes of what used to be the loading screen


----------



## Mindweaver (Jun 25, 2012)

Nice score AthlonX2!  Here's mine. 

OCZ 240GB RevoDrive3 x2






This should help your process. All SSD users that use ATTO should do the same to help the OP. 



Write|Read
1261|1221
2720|2601
5300|5202
10310|9941
18450|19051
35964|38824
77308|81061
141742|142750
307100|309950
575090|584861
768788|795364
945195|1309441
1039943|1391887
1150437|1484138
1231950|1524448


----------



## 0x0000007b (Jun 30, 2012)

*My score in HD Tune Pro*

Here is mine:
HD Tune Pro: SAMSUNG HD502HJ Benchmark

Test capacity: full

Read transfer rate
Transfer Rate Minimum : 68.6 MB/s
Transfer Rate Maximum : 139.0 MB/s
Transfer Rate Average : 111.5 MB/s
Access Time : 13.3 ms
Burst Rate : 152.4 MB/s
CPU Usage : 2.3%


----------



## Necromancer713 (Jul 1, 2012)

Here is mine

2x WD 320gb HDD in Raid 0 128k stripe


----------



## 0x0000007b (Jul 1, 2012)

Necromancer713 said:


> Here is mine
> 
> 2x WD 320gb HDD in Raid 0 128k stripe
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47638&stc=1&d=1341136684



The RAID and non-RAID HDD are not comparable.


----------



## VulkanBros (Jul 1, 2012)




----------



## 0x0000007b (Jul 1, 2012)

VulkanBros said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/120701/Capture015398.jpg



128°C, the OCZ Vertex 3 doesn't have working temperature sensor, the S.M.A.R.T will return a value of 128.


----------



## VulkanBros (Jul 1, 2012)




----------



## 0x0000007b (Jul 1, 2012)

VulkanBros said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/120701/Capture016361.jpg



Remember, most of the solid-state drives doesn't have a temperature sensor.

Your operating system language is Danish.


----------



## BATOFF3 (Aug 22, 2012)

heres mine

Kingston SSDNOW V+200  120gb
I dont really know if it is within specs.


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 22, 2012)

Wow. I thought this thread was dead haha. Anyway, I can still update the list though if anyone cares to have it updated?


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 22, 2012)

10 x 146gb, 15k, SAS6 (RAID0)


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 22, 2012)

Psychoholic said:


> 10 x 146gb, 15k, SAS6 (RAID0)
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120822/4 (1).jpg



Is that a....server? I am assuming?

Also, to everyone and anyone who tested using ATTO, your scores were not recorded. I stated on the first post that I cannot use those. Technically I can but it is a major pain. Sorry.

Also, long live this thread. *UPDATED*


----------



## Psychoholic (Aug 22, 2012)

Yes, just for fun.. its a server in one of our labs at work.

Dell R720XD with dual E5-2690's and 128gb ram.

There are 24 slots for drives, and 8 more empty slots when i built this raid0 disk, thought about maxing it out to see what happens.. lol





satindemon4u said:


> Is that a....server? I am assuming?
> 
> Also, to everyone and anyone who tested using ATTO, your scores were not recorded. I stated on the first post that I cannot use those. Technically I can but it is a major pain. Sorry.
> 
> Also, long live this thread. *UPDATED*


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 25, 2012)

Psychoholic said:


> Yes, just for fun.. its a server in one of our labs at work.
> 
> Dell R720XD with dual E5-2690's and 128gb ram.
> 
> There are 24 slots for drives, and 8 more empty slots when i built this raid0 disk, thought about maxing it out to see what happens.. lol



I gotcha haha.


----------



## Dos101 (Aug 25, 2012)

My OCZ Agility 3 SSD. SATA3, AHCI, and latest firmware. Disappointed :shadedshu


----------



## Morgoth (Aug 25, 2012)

ramdisk 3gb 1033mhz


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 26, 2012)

Updated.


----------



## silkstone (Aug 26, 2012)

Is there something wrong with my ssd?


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 26, 2012)

silkstone said:


> Is there something wrong with my ssd?



Why?


----------



## silkstone (Aug 26, 2012)

satindemon4u said:


> Why?



The HD tune speeds spike quite a lot.


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Aug 26, 2012)

My *Free* Kingston HyperX 120GB

HDtune is the only one that shows speeds that slow, all the other benchies i run come up around the 500mb mark


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 26, 2012)

silkstone said:


> The HD tune speeds spike quite a lot.



You could try another test. I have noticed that some do, some don't.


----------



## Morgoth (Aug 26, 2012)

why is my score not on the list? igot the fastes


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 26, 2012)

Zoom.


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 26, 2012)

Morgoth said:


> why is my score not on the list? igot the fastes



Because that is tested with ATTO. I prefer not to use ATTO on my lists. If you could use the other that would be great.

Also I guess I new to the whole RamDisk thing. Someone wanna explain it?


----------



## Morgoth (Aug 26, 2012)

ramdisk is turning your ddr ram into a ssd
hd tune does not see all my drives..


----------



## johnspack (Aug 26, 2012)

Here's 4gb ram caching on my Seagate:


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 27, 2012)

Ok well I shall make an updated version of the first post to include ramdisk speeds. I will not put them under SSD speeds seeing as how these are two different things.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 27, 2012)

Actually my post is neither...  it's a mechanical hd with a system ram disk cache.  Not a ram disk either.  Here,  read it for yourself..  free software too!  :  http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/index.html


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 27, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Actually my post is neither...  it's a mechanical hd with a system ram disk cache.  Not a ram disk either.  Here,  read it for yourself..  free software too!  :  http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/index.html



Thanks for the info! Also if you could possibly test with CrystalDiskMark that would be great!


----------



## johnspack (Aug 29, 2012)

Okay,  Crystal results for 4gb cache on a 200gb partition on the Seagate 2tb:


----------



## johnspack (Aug 29, 2012)

To configure Fancycache for optimal results per partition,  set it about like this:


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 30, 2012)

johnspack said:


> To configure Fancycache for optimal results per partition,  set it about like this:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120829/fancycache1.png



I myself use Dataram Ramdisk. Also here are my results if anyone is to care. 






EDIT: Hmm...I need to find out why mine is so low. Just tested the other day with results over 5000. Now, this. -.-

Could it be that I am using DDR2 RAM?


----------



## johnspack (Aug 30, 2012)

Yes,  system ram speed will directly affect cached results.


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 30, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Yes,  system ram speed will directly affect cached results.



Well then haha. I have been trying to sell the rig for a laptop. This simply makes me want to do that even more!

Edit: By that I mean a new laptop would mean faster RAM. Instead of this dusty DDR2.


----------



## Morgoth (Aug 30, 2012)

Ramdisk




HDD ramdisk chache 




DDr3 1333mhz


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 31, 2012)

Morgoth said:


> http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg51/scaled.php?server=51&filename=ramdisko.jpg&res=landing
> http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7204/ramdiskmark.jpg



Please specify what is what haha


----------



## repman244 (Aug 31, 2012)

*satindemon4u* you forgot to add the results by *Psychoholic* that are on previous page.
Also the test *theoneandonlymrk* took, shouldn't that be placed in HDD RAID? He said he used "3xdisk raid 0 is 3x western digital caviar blues 230 Gb 16mb cache".

Anyhow here's my laptop HDD:

Toshiba MK5061GSYN 500GB 7200RPM


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 31, 2012)

Thanks repman. I didn't take psychoholic's test because he was testing a server. That is different than your average pc. Or even a gaming pc. Updated.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 31, 2012)

my new memory card for the cellphone





can anyone explain the weird downs?


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 31, 2012)

I can explain none of that since it is a memory card...for a cell phone. lol.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 31, 2012)

its a class 10 SDHC, you can tell that from the test


----------



## Arctucas (Aug 31, 2012)

4GB RAMDisk


----------



## johnspack (Sep 1, 2012)

Dam nice Artucas!  Blowing my score away...  how do you have your ram set up?
Edit,  yep,  I'm lagging somewhere...


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 1, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Here's 4gb ram caching on my Seagate:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120826/hdtune2.png


Holy Shit Batman!!! 

And I thought 560MB was good lol


----------



## johnspack (Sep 1, 2012)

Yeah,  it helps to have freakish amounts of ram to throw around!  It really does work though,  caching my c drive I notice now every page in firefox loads instantly ect.  All my apps load instantly...  finally found a good use for all my ram!


----------



## Psychoholic (Sep 1, 2012)

Yea, that was a server in a lab at work.

**Here's my 256GB Crucial M4**


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 1, 2012)

Nice guys, updated.


----------



## Arctucas (Sep 1, 2012)

johnspack said:


> Dam nice Artucas!  Blowing my score away...  how do you have your ram set up?
> <SNIP>


----------



## Morgoth (Sep 1, 2012)

im stil not listed.....


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 3, 2012)

That was my bad Morgoth. You are now listed.


----------



## BATOFF3 (Sep 5, 2012)

here is mine


----------



## satindemon4u (Sep 5, 2012)

updated!


----------



## Laurijan (Sep 16, 2012)

Single SSD:
OCZ Agility 3 120GB – 138.8 – 402.1 – 283.4 Laurijan


----------



## newlife (Sep 16, 2012)

Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 HDS723020BLA642 2 TB HDD:





And Patriot Pyro 60 GB SSD(with last firmware which doubles the speed):





UPDATE:ASRock RAM Disk 3 GB(ddr3-2080mhz)


----------



## Laurijan (Sep 17, 2012)

Asrock XFastRAM RAM Disk
Samsung green 30nm DDR3 2000MHz - 5772.5 - 6789 - 6462.5


----------



## Soup (Sep 17, 2012)

2 Vertex 3 120gb in RAID0





I'm guessing the low speeds are due to the marvell controller?

If i switch over to the Intel ports and rebuild the raid, will I have to re-install my OS?


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 17, 2012)

Here's my Samsung F4 320GB..........  Will do me SSD sometime too.


----------



## Drac (Sep 18, 2012)

Vertex 2 60 gb and Vertex 4 128 gb


----------



## Wrathier (Sep 19, 2012)

Took some screens of speed from Crystal mark 64-Bit:

Raid 0 OCZ Vertex 4 (Remade with new firmware Version: 1.5:






Raid 0 Seagate Intern Barracuda 500GB (Cache 16 MB / 7200RPM / Sata 6Gb/s) ST500DM002


----------



## renz (Oct 22, 2012)

*My Dual SSD Setup (Raid 0)*


----------



## baskinro (Nov 17, 2012)

*SSD Bench*



satindemon4u said:


> *UPDATE: Now taking RamDisk tests as well! Please test with HDTune or CrystalMark* Note: Speeds taken down are Seq. write speeds.
> 
> *SSD TESTERS:*When testing use HDTune! - Thanks cadaveca
> *HDD TESTERS:* If you could also use HDtune that would be great. With the results from bench32 I have to sit and find your averages. This is not a MUST, just appreciated.
> ...



Saw some bench on this guide using ram cache. i think this guide on *http://www.computingunleashed.com/tweaks-to-speed-up-ssd-optimize.html* ssd explains it.


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 4, 2013)

Haven't updated in a while so I thought I would. Updated!


----------



## Totocellux (Dec 13, 2013)

hi, this is my setup and the ramdisk (SoftPerfect Ram Disk v3.4.3) score:


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 13, 2013)

Thank you! Will update shortly


----------



## purecain (Dec 14, 2013)

heres mine, intel srt specs in sig.... ive got an extra set of Kingston beast winging its way over here for Monday, I'm looking forward to joining the ram disk crowd... the speeds look unbelievable...




and heres my ramdisk's initial score... ive just set it up... cant get the pictures in order... doH!!!!!!


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 14, 2013)

Could you guys please test in HDTune so that I can add you to the list. It just gives me some easier numbers to work with.


----------



## purecain (Dec 15, 2013)

I just noticed im running the same mem speed as Totocellux but his scores are much higher on the same chipset...

that improvement looks like it came from your oc on the base clock.. what were your experiances and sweet spots, I havnt played with base clock yet....


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 15, 2013)

Hope he comes back and sees your question haha. Be nice if there were a way to....tag or something. May want to go ahead and shoot him a PM or something.


----------



## purecain (Dec 15, 2013)

I cant get it to work accelerated through srt atm on HDTune... its typical... its giving me a constant 525-540mbps just using the 60gb corsair force.... also it wouldn't recognise the ram drive either...

i'll post my score up after ive sorted it...


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 15, 2013)

Alright that works too!  Thank you. Sorry for the trouble.


----------



## mightysi (Dec 15, 2013)

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB




2x OCZ Agility 3 120Gb in Raid 0


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 15, 2013)

First post has been updated to include your speeds. It seems you scored .2 lower (if I remember correctly) than me haha. I too use to have a spinpoint F3. Loved it!


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 27, 2013)

And now for something a little bit less common I guess. Surprisingly, I haven't heard about anyone with this SSD yet, which puzzles me, because its performance is simply amazing.

Nevermind the CPU usage, I had something running in the background with 6 threads


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 28, 2013)

Octopuss said:


> And now for something a little bit less common I guess. Surprisingly, I haven't heard about anyone with this SSD yet, which puzzles me, because its performance is simply amazing.
> 
> Nevermind the CPU usage, I had something running in the background with 6 threads



And added to the list you are! I think you may be the first on the list using a SanDisk which as you stated, seems odd that no one else is using one. Speeds seem good to me. I mean, you came in 4th on the list of SSD speeds!


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 28, 2013)

I read a review on Anandtech a few months ago when the SSD was still relatively new, and despite coming out on absolute top along with stuff like 840 Pro, I haven't seen a single post about it on any of the forums I visit. Really weird. I also had really hard time finding a store which would sell it over here.

Anyway, I seem to be getting somewhat inconsistent results when I rerun the benchmark. I restarted the PC and made sure nothing was running, and got 390MB/s min and 420 max speeds. Next time the min speed jumped to ~405. Now I tried again under load and seem to be getting 420-460.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 28, 2013)

O ya, I was going to post this

*Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001 3TB 7200*


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 29, 2013)

Nice speed Jet! Put you in 2nd for the HDD slot. Nice man, Nice size drive too!


----------



## Lunat!c (Dec 31, 2013)

seagate barracuda 2tb 159.8 mb/s

i think im third for HDD


----------



## CrackerJack (Dec 31, 2013)

Corsair GT 120GB RAID0
952 MB/s Write 1056 MB/s Read


----------



## Jetster (Dec 31, 2013)

I'm telling ya Seagate is the way to go.


----------



## Lunat!c (Dec 31, 2013)

yeah, seagate ftw, screw WD


----------



## HammerON (Dec 31, 2013)

2 OCZ Vertex 4 256GB Raid 0


----------



## freakshow (Dec 31, 2013)

2 Samsung 840 120GB Non-EVO in Raid 0


----------



## xvi (Dec 31, 2013)

Just got my "I'm tired of using a flash drive, what's the cheapest thing on eBay?" drive. It appears to be a Seagate Momentus 5400.2 60GB.

```
root@slax:~# hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads:  5166 MB in  2.00 seconds = 2588.37 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 122 MB in  3.02 seconds =  40.34 MB/sec
```

I think I'm going to regret this decision after a little while. 

Edit: I don't expect to be added to the list, but if you're interested in a new low score, I could hop over on WinPE and run a fairly clean HDTune and whatnot.


----------



## VulkanBros (Dec 31, 2013)

Samsung EVO 500 GB


----------



## Blue-Knight (Dec 31, 2013)

HDD #0:


 

HDD #1:


----------



## Jetster (Dec 31, 2013)

What is HDD #0:? Put that drive out of its misery


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 31, 2013)

The whole PC looks like ten years old, lol.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Dec 31, 2013)

Jetster said:


> What is HDD #0:? Put that drive out of its misery


It is the most reliable drive I have at the moment. Maybe it will be replaced in 2015 (or before (if not after), not sure).



Octopuss said:


> The whole PC looks like ten years old, lol.


The drive's performance is limited by UDMA 2 (33MB/s). The drive itself can achieve UDMA 6 speed (133MB/s). Its power on hours is less than 2 years.

If I am not mistaken.


----------



## Zedicus (Jan 3, 2014)

the code tag is failing me ATM, will fix with a screen shot at some point. (linux console box)


----------



## RCoon (Jan 6, 2014)

Just started using a RAMDisk, figured I may as well use my RAM considering nothing else does.


----------



## CrackerJack (Jan 6, 2014)

RAMDisk


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 7, 2014)

Oh boy. Seems I have a lot to update. Will jump on it tomorrow. I didn't get any updates that the thread was being posted on haha


----------



## RCoon (Jan 7, 2014)

CrackerJack said:


> RAMDisk
> View attachment 53763 View attachment 53764



My 2133 ram is only running at 1600 because hthis v formula motherboard is horribly broken. What is your ram speed for getting those read and write speeds?


----------



## CrackerJack (Jan 7, 2014)




----------



## Octopuss (Jan 7, 2014)

I don't want to sound like an ass, but do we really need ramdisk results here?


----------



## XSI (Jan 7, 2014)

System is as in specs.BTW HDD temp is pretty good i would say  both at 23*C (cooled by one 120mm cooler master fan)


----------



## XSI (Jan 7, 2014)

My SSD is definitely bottlenecked by my motherboard.


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 7, 2014)

Octopuss said:


> I don't want to sound like an ass, but do we really need ramdisk results here?



Is just for fun. People started posting them here and there so I figured why not.

That one took a little bit. With that being said, updated.


----------



## Zedicus (Jan 8, 2014)

hopefully this works, dificult getting usable test results off of it.  8 1tb hitachi E7k drives in raid 5 on HP P410
tests ran while box was in use.   the +++++ means the test completed before a usable measure could be recorded, i increased the test size until i got mostly usable results.   measuring with defaults got me +++++ on basically everything.


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 9, 2014)

Can you test it with HD Tune or no? Not sure how I am to pull data from that...lol


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 9, 2014)

500gb Seagate 7200.12






not bad considering it's 5-6 years old(I got it used in 2009)


----------



## Arjai (Jan 9, 2014)

First time I have ever SEEN Disk 0, my 24 GB cache SSD, ever show anything but 0% ! Unfortunately, it was also the only time I saw a windows, perhaps ASUS, popup telling me my HDD was running unusually hot! Also unfortunately, TPU Capture would not load fast enough to record the activity on my SSD cache.

So, forgot the guidelines for posting, and, really don't know why I did this with a 5400 RPM laptop HDD. But, here it is. They high point has to be the point where it accessed the SSD.

PS, Also, not bad considering this thing is using SATA 2!


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 11, 2014)

List has been updated.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 11, 2014)

satindemon4u said:


> HDD0(?) 80GB – 21.4 – 30.7 – 30.4 Blue-Knight


But the model is included in the post. Please, change it to HDD0 (ST380215A).



satindemon4u said:


> HDD1(?) 160GB 3.5 – 125.1 – 99.0 Blue-Knight


But the model is included in the post. Please, change it to HDD1 (ST3160813AS).

Thank you!


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 11, 2014)

First post has been updated to include the models.


----------



## EnJeyTee (Jan 24, 2014)

Four 1 TB WD Caviar Blue in Raid 0
500GB System Partition
3+TB 2nd Partition


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jan 24, 2014)

4x WD Black RAID 0 - 404.7 - 490.2 - *453* AthlonX2





2 x Seagate 600 RAID 0  - 980.8 - 1031.9 - *1000.8* AthlonX2


----------



## Sleath (Jan 24, 2014)

Ramdisks are fun though... I think something is letting down the team in my pc though.


----------



## Olias_of_Sunhillo (Jan 25, 2014)

Mine 2 by 1 Tb Samsung F3 in Raid 0


----------



## azwel (Feb 28, 2014)

does mine look ok? theres a weird dip at the end.    cpu is my inter dual core q9550.
everything in my health was "Ok"   Cpu was idle with no programs running for a few min


----------



## Jetster (Feb 28, 2014)

azwel said:


> does mine look ok? theres a weird dip at the end.    cpu is my inter dual core q9550.
> everything in my health was "Ok"   Cpu was idle with no programs running for a few min



looks normal for an older drive. If the heath was good then its a good drive. Use Crystal Disk Info to see how many hours are on the drive. 40,000 hours is about it for a platter drive


----------



## azwel (Feb 28, 2014)

thanks.. Ill download that


----------



## azwel (Feb 28, 2014)

hey...40,670 hours..     Argh.  How is the health "good' though


----------



## Jetster (Feb 28, 2014)

azwel said:


> hey...40,670 hours..     Argh.  How is the health "good' though



Its just not showing any SMART errors. They are designed to notify you if a failure is coming.

You leave your PC running 24/7? lol

If SMART data is turned on in the BIOS it will notify you before a failure. Hopefully. It actually works pretty good


----------



## azwel (Feb 28, 2014)

Yes. I leave it 24/7.  Hmm what should i do from this point. Besides back the comp up.(although i cant and made another thread for that lol)


----------



## Jetster (Feb 28, 2014)

azwel said:


> Yes. I leave it 24/7.  Hmm what should i do from this point. Besides back the comp up.(although i cant and made another thread for that lol)



If it were me I would go ahead and replace the drive. Then sell the old one while its still good. But as long as you have a back up of your data. Just run it. It could last a while longer.

A new drive will bring some performance gains with it


----------



## azwel (Feb 28, 2014)

to what you mentioned above.      how can i set up smart to turn up in the bios? will this help hd tune identify more things when i run it?    i would thing hd tune would be automatically set to identify my problems. otherwise its lyinggg!
thanx


----------



## satindemon4u (Mar 1, 2014)

I need to update the first page haha. Sorry guys! Will try to do so tomorrow. Been a bit busy lately with school and work and whatnot.


----------



## freeleacher (Mar 4, 2014)

Intel 520


----------



## 0x0000007b (Mar 27, 2014)

My Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB drive on my new system bought on March 23 tested with HD Tune Pro 5.50.


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 30, 2015)

Been a while since I have updated this list! In fact, almost a year. I figured I would blow the dust off of it and keep it going as I am sure people like to use this when shopping around.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Dec 31, 2015)

satindemon4u said:


> Been a while since I have updated this list! In fact, almost a year. I figured I would blow the dust off of it and keep it going as I am sure people like to use this when shopping around.



Cool, what software do you recommend to test with for today's SSD focused systems?


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 31, 2015)

AlwaysHope said:


> Cool, what software do you recommend to test with for today's SSD focused systems?



HDTune. They have a free version, which I recommend.

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

Haven't even tested my own SSD yet :O so I figured now would be a good time to.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 31, 2015)

WD Black 5TB. The new WD black drives with 128MB Cache.


----------



## Ebo (Dec 31, 2015)

AlwaysHope said:


> Cool, what software do you recommend to test with for today's SSD focused systems?



crystaldiskmark, atto and hdtune


----------



## xvi (Dec 31, 2015)

I don't think HD Tune can keep up with today's SSDs. ATTO fares much better. 

Samsung 950 Pro 256GB












Ebo said:


> crystaldiskmark, atto and hdtune


AS SSD Bench as well, although I don't like it as much as CrystalDiskMark.


----------



## DarthBaggins (Dec 31, 2015)

Wow, looks like I know what I want next other than one of the Intel 750's lol


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 31, 2015)

Crucial MX200 500GB


----------



## xvi (Dec 31, 2015)

HGST HTS721010A9E630, 1TB 2.5" 7200RPM


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 31, 2015)

xvi said:


> I don't think HD Tune can keep up with today's SSDs. ATTO fares much better.
> 
> Samsung 950 Pro 256GB
> 
> ...



My god that thing is screaming O.O


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 31, 2015)

Weird.. thread title says HDD... I see SSDs...

@xvi - Its not that it can't keep up, it is that it is testing different things. ATTO is highly compressible sequential reads and writes, while HDTune/Tach, I believe, is not. That looks more than random reads/writes at mid file sizes.

I would say however, that something is choking that drive a bit. My 950 in ATTO was peaking over 2,500 reads and 1,500 writes (as spec'd out by Samsung).

I will edit this post with my run later (file is at home).



xkm1948 said:


> Crucial MX200 500GB


I think you have quick cache or w/e enable there bub.


----------



## satindemon4u (Dec 31, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> Weird.. thread title says HDD... I see SSDs...
> 
> @xvi - Its not that it can't keep up, it is that it is testing different things. ATTO is highly compressible sequential reads and writes, while HDTune/Tach, I believe, is not. That looks more than random reads/writes at mid file sizes.
> 
> ...



Thread title needs a change I know. However, test results are still split at least.


----------



## xvi (Dec 31, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I would say however, that something is choking that drive a bit. My 950 in ATTO was peaking over 2,500 reads and 1,500 writes (as spec'd out by Samsung).


I've got the 256GB model which has slightly lower read/write speeds than your 512GB. I'd suspect that's the case. I'm hoping to pick up a second 256GB drive some time in the future. Should max out the controller (A little under ~3GB/s-ish?).

What I thought was pretty curious is that HD Tune would only do 1000MB/s with the laptop running off battery power. 
I suspect it's.. I'unno. Some sort of PCIe link power saving? CPU wasn't maxed out.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 1, 2016)

*WD Caviar Black 2TB with custom set PrimoCache 256MB read/write cache*





Sequential is nothing to brag about even for HDD, but the 4K random is pretty darn good for a mechanical HDD.

*Samsung SM951 128GB M.2 AHCI with custom set PrimoCache 256MB write cache




*
I'm aware that write speed is very low for this M.2 drive, but it's almost full and is dedicated for data caching. Also, I'm using exFAT on it. So, what I actually care about is the read speed. And as you can see, it's just mental


----------



## Arctucas (Jan 1, 2016)




----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 2, 2016)

Ebo said:


> crystaldiskmark, atto and hdtune


I wouldn't trust atto, since it hasn't been updated since 2011, its a bit like using MaxxMEM2 to measure ram performance. Don't think it's reliable with todays tech.

PCMark 8 storage benchmark has adequate HDD performance measuring, even the free version. 

That would be better choice than older atto imo..


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 3, 2016)

It works just fine and is plenty reliable. As mentioned earlier some makers use it for max/advertised speeds. It tests sequential highly compressible data.


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 4, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> I'm aware that write speed is very low for this M.2 drive, but it's almost full and is dedicated for data caching. Also, I'm using exFAT on it. So, what I actually care about is the read speed. And as you can see, it's just mental



I was gonna comment about the massive gap in read/write haha. But like you said, killer read speeds!


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 4, 2016)

It's probably just some specific thing about the way I'm using it, which doesn't bother me for that very reason. Otherwise it's rated at 1GB/s write so yeah...


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 4, 2016)

Lite-On 256GB SSD


 

Samsung 840 Evo 500GB


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 4, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> WD Caviar Black 2TB with custom set PrimoCache 256MB read/write cache



how does that primo cache work exactly? i know its a program that runs Some type of cache, but what is the cache made up from, RAM? or an SSD? if you have the time to reply, id appreciate it, im interested in that program, and was thinking about giving it a try. Thanks either way.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jan 4, 2016)

What lacks with this thread is what controller is the storage device attached too? motherboard chipset or dedicated hardware controller like PCIe expansion card etc? and what brand? specs? this will have effect on performance outcome results no doubt. 

I've done some testing with my setup but have included utility like CPU-Z with tab open for motherboard model. This way its better understood what other devices are attached in the data chain, otherwise imo this thread is pretty useless for real world performance scenarios.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 5, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> how does that primo cache work exactly? i know its a program that runs Some type of cache, but what is the cache made up from, RAM? or an SSD? if you have the time to reply, id appreciate it, im interested in that program, and was thinking about giving it a try. Thanks either way.



You can have both. As buffer cache using RAM or as permanent SSD cache on SSD drive. But I'm using eBoostr for that since I can use file exclusions and it has few things done better for my situation. I've disabled Windows write cache and replaced it with PrimoCache because it gives me more control over size and write purging methods. They are both cheap. eBoostr is like $15 and PrimoCache is $30 for a single license. Also, PrimoCache has very long full trial mode so you can thoroughly test it for more than a month. give it a shot and play around with it.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> You can have both.



thanks, i appreciate the information, im gonna DL it now and try it out. I have a 850 evo 500Gb that is only using 1-200 Gb's, and it would be nice to put the other Gb's to work as well


----------



## satindemon4u (Jan 5, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> You can have both. As buffer cache using RAM or as permanent SSD cache on SSD drive. But I'm using eBoostr for that since I can use file exclusions and it has few things done better for my situation. I've disabled Windows write cache and replaced it with PrimoCache because it gives me more control over size and write purging methods. They are both cheap. eBoostr is like $15 and PrimoCache is $30 for a single license. Also, PrimoCache has very long full trial mode so you can thoroughly test it for more than a month. give it a shot and play around with it.



Hope this isn't a dumb question but, is using a RamDisk at all similar to this? Right now for my laptop I have a 2GB RamDisk setup.

EDIT: Nevermind, found the difference lol.


----------



## Derek12 (Feb 17, 2016)

Bump to update my results to reflect my new SSD and 2TB drive, and two drives interchanged between my desktop and my netbook lol
My new SSD working in a SATA 2 port (for OS), it really has 500MB/s for writing and reading

Kingston SHFS37A120G





My new HDD 2TB Also working in a SATA 2 port (for Games and VMs)
WDC WD20EZRZ-00Z5HB0






My old HDD 255GB taken from my netbook and plugged in my desktop





My netbook using the same Toshiba drive as my desktop before,


----------



## kwikgta (Feb 17, 2016)

My 6 velociraptors in raid 0


----------



## MariusMM1982 (Mar 12, 2016)

Samsung 950Pro 512GB on a Asrock Oc Formula Z170 and Intel Skylake 6700 @ 4.67Mhz


----------



## fred6187 (Apr 23, 2016)

SSD SAMSUNG 850 EVO with fast mode of Samsung Magician
..............................................................................................................................................................



SSD SAMSUNG 850 EVO without fast mode of Samsung Magician
..............................................................................................................................................................


SSD SAMSUNG SERIE 950 PRO M.2 (does not support fast mode of Samsung Magician)


----------



## xvi (Apr 23, 2016)

fred6187 said:


> SSD SAMSUNG SERIE 950 PRO M.2 (does not support fast mode of Samsung Magician)


Doesn't need it.


----------



## Toothless (Apr 28, 2016)

aldo11061979 said:


> View attachment 74049 View attachment 74049


That's not what we're using as a benchmark, read the thread before trying to get epeen using the wrong bench.

And don't double post.


----------



## Arrakis9 (Apr 28, 2016)

can i be apart of the club too? 

Its an intel 750 PCIE HHHL (CEM2.0) 400GB


----------



## aldo11061979 (Apr 28, 2016)

Intel 750 Series 400GB PCI-E Solid State Drive


----------



## yotano211 (Apr 28, 2016)

Here are my hard drives.

X2 Samsung Spinpoint M9T 2TB
x2 Samsung 850 ssd in raid 0
**they might be a little slower since all 3 where running at once, all are laptop HDs


----------



## xvi (Apr 29, 2016)

xvi said:


> I don't think HD Tune can keep up with today's SSDs. ATTO fares much better.
> 
> Samsung 950 Pro 256GB



I now have two of these Samsung 950 Pro 256GB drives in RAID 0 with Windows installed on them (unlike the clean run before). Still seeing relatively slow speeds in HD Tune. Don't know why, but it _really_ hates me. ATTO, again, fares _much_ better. Almost 50% better. Can I use that number instead of HD Tune? Pretty please?

Single drive HD Tune (avg): 1,158.7 MB/s
Dual drive HD Tune (avg): 2,291.1 MB/s

Single drive ATTO (max): 2,297,124 KB/s
Dual drive ATTO (max):  3,203,268 KB/s


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 29, 2016)

WOW XVI, whats the difference in the 850 and the 950pro?


----------



## xvi (Apr 29, 2016)

jaggerwild said:


> WOW XVI, whats the difference in the 850 and the 950pro?


A whole heck of a lot. I'm not an expert on this all, but as I understand it, the 950 Pro is a M.2 NVMe SSD that runs off of PCI-Express bus whereas the 850 Pro/Evo has to be crammed through a slower SATA bus (which can also come in the M.2 form factor). As for all the internals, I'm not sure what kind of witchcraft Samsung put in to the 950 to make it haul, but there's definitely some internal changes too.

A 950 Pro M.2 and an 850 Evo M.2 will look almost the same (and will often fit in the same slot, with some exceptions), but the difference is how it connects to the system electrically.


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 29, 2016)

So you have 2 M.2 NVMe SSD'S in a raid very cool! nearly 2000 write time, have you tried turning off back ground stuff to increase it?


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 29, 2016)

xvi said:


> A 950 Pro M.2 and an 850 Evo M.2 will look almost the same (and will often fit in the same slot, with some exceptions), but the difference is how it connects to the system electrically.


NVMe has up to 30Gb/s bandwidth while SATA has up to 10Gb/s


----------



## xvi (Apr 29, 2016)

jaggerwild said:


> So you have 2 M.2 NVMe SSD'S in a raid very cool! nearly 2000 write time, have you tried turning off back ground stuff to increase it?


Two NVMe SSDs, yep. Here's a photo of 'em too. Haven't trimmed out any background processes, no. It's a fresh install of Windows, so I'm hoping it's fairly minimal background usage.

I just realized that with the addition of this second SSD, my laptop has now cost me more than my car. 
I told myself I wouldn't cross that line, but here we are. 


>





Caring1 said:


> NVMe has up to 30Gb/s bandwidth while SATA has up to 10Gb/s


Which revision? SATA III is 6Gbps (~750MB/s, but usually not much more than 500MB/s real-world). Looks like there's a SATA 3.2 revision that'll do 16Gbps, but I don't think that's hit the market yet. Would be interesting to see, but it sounds like it might be too little too late now that NVMe/PCIe SSDs are gaining traction.


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 29, 2016)

xvi said:


> Two NVMe SSDs, yep. Here's a photo of 'em too. Haven't trimmed out any background processes, no. It's a fresh install of Windows, so I'm hoping it's fairly minimal background usage.
> 
> I just realized that with the addition of this second SSD, my laptop has now cost me more than my car.
> I told myself I wouldn't cross that line, but here we are.
> ...



Cool! Thats one hell of a gaming laptop you have, yeah pricey though... *cough* *cough*


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Apr 29, 2016)

2 NVMe M.2 SSDs is considered as godlike. With a fresh copy of Windows running, I think your SSD will perform much better than a simple mirror & migrate.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 29, 2016)

xvi said:


> Which revision? SATA III is 6Gbps (~750MB/s, but usually not much more than 500MB/s real-world). Looks like there's a SATA 3.2 revision that'll do 16Gbps, but I don't think that's hit the market yet. Would be interesting to see, but it sounds like it might be too little too late now that NVMe/PCIe SSDs are gaining traction.


I meant the M2 slots. PCIe X4/ sata. Fastest rated speed was 10Gb/s before NVMe came along.


----------



## no1yak (Apr 29, 2016)

Samsung 950 Pro NvMe 500GB


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 29, 2016)

Seagate 6 TB drive is >200 MB/s read/write with ~8ms access time.


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 29, 2016)

Samsung 850 Pro 512GB


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 30, 2016)

Patriot Pyro 120Gb
 
Patriot Pyro 120Gb

Sandisk X400 256Gb
 
Sandisk X400 256Gb


----------



## Derek12 (Jul 7, 2016)

Upgraded my aging Samsung N145P Atom N455 netbook with a Kingston SSDnow 120GB. Speed seemingly limited by SATA2.

Now it seems to be a new computer


----------



## Komshija (Aug 21, 2016)

Mushkin Triactor 240GB SSD:


 

Toshiba X300 4TB HDD:


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 21, 2016)

Attempting to get some help from an Admin guys. Since I can no longer edit the first post.


----------



## Tuna Yücer (Aug 21, 2016)

Seems legit thread 

Samsung 840 Evo 120GB SSD



 


WD Blue WD10EZEX 1TB


----------



## Tomgang (Aug 21, 2016)

Ram disk on an old X58 triple channel setup. I am not gonna show my other drives speed cause they are filled up and my SSD are running on a sata 3 pci controller but that controller can not show the SSD true speed cause it maxes out at 375 MB/s read and ride in 200 MB/s and my SSD are faster than that and besides they are pretty full and that will properly not give the true speed of my two SSD or hardrives.


----------



## satindemon4u (Aug 22, 2016)

Updated. 

Thanks to erocker !


----------



## messenger77 (Aug 22, 2016)

Here is my OS drive..


----------



## Komshija (Aug 22, 2016)

Toshiba X300 4TB with a little more data on it. Defragmented and tested with Crystal Disk Mark and ATTO.


----------



## slozomby (Aug 23, 2016)

d: Samsung 850 512GB
e: Perc 710 Raid Controller 12TB R5  4x4tb WD Red








note: the Raid controller never even touched the disks. its all cached.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 6, 2017)

Samsung 960 Pro 512 GB:


----------



## Jetster (Jan 6, 2017)

Nice , it just needs to come down in price a little


----------



## nomdeplume (Jan 6, 2017)

Boot drive, 2/3 full with lots of individual 2-8 GB files.  SSD shows up tomorrow so I figured what the hey.  I'll update this tomorrow after reformatting and add the 850 Evo.


----------



## Vulcansheart (Jan 7, 2017)

4x Samsung EVO 840/850 250GB drives in RAID0 on SATA3:




Samsung 120GB SM951 (PCIe mode)


 


Seagate Firecuda 2TB hybrid SSHD SATA3 (after 3 runs to "learn" the program)





Western Digital WD4003FZEX 4TB SATA3





Apricorn Aegis 128GB encrypted USB3.0 flash drive





A snippet of some benchmark testing that I did on some of my drives and charted in Excel


----------



## nomdeplume (Jan 8, 2017)

Guess I missed the edit limit.

Samsung 850 Evo 250GB









With Rapid Mode









Toshiba HDWD 110 1TB 7200 rpm aka the $40 Microcenter 1 TB HDD


----------



## Flybyderp (Jan 10, 2017)

My BP5e Slim 7, well worth the money.


----------



## IBRAHIM_007 (Jan 25, 2017)

WD Black Performance 2TB (WD2003FZEX) - 93.7 - 205.5 - *159.8 *- IBRAHIM_007

















WD Blue 1TB (WD10EZEX) - 91 - 189.2 - *147 *- IBRAHIM_007

















both of them 7200 RPM SATA 6 Gb/s 64MB Cache 3.5 Inch

black have better and faster access time ( black 12.3 ms  vs  blue 16 ms )

C (6% fragmented) + D = Black
E +  G = Blue






i did run windows defragment tool on C (Lowered to 6%) and D (went down from 11% to 0%)


----------



## silkstone (Jan 25, 2017)

MX300 - 750G. 

Not as fast as my 850 EVO, but considering it was cheaper and 3x the capacity, I'm more than happy


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 26, 2017)

HDD's feel just so slow.. 



Spoiler: HD Tune













Spoiler: CrystalDiskMark











Edited the HD Tune benchmarks to this post.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jan 26, 2017)

I believe the requirement was an ATTO or HD Tune test.  CrystalDisk were just for fun since they humored the numerical performance aspect of some drives more than the other two tests.


----------



## Kissamies (Jan 27, 2017)

nomdeplume said:


> I believe the requirement was an ATTO or HD Tune test.  CrystalDisk were just for fun since they humored the numerical performance aspect of some drives more than the other two tests.


Ah ok, let's run that and edit my post.


----------



## jimmy99099099 (May 23, 2017)

My RAID setup of 4 1.8TB Dell 10K RPM SAS drives in RAID 10.


----------



## Tomgang (May 23, 2017)

Samsung 950 PRO M.2 NVMe 256 GB SSD. Please note this SSD is not running in Optimal condition for full speed since it has a full Windows 10 install on it and some games/software + it is running on an old X58 setup with only PCI Express 2 via a PCIe M.2 X4 adaptor. That may effect max speeds. With that said i dont complain. I have an fully working M.2 NVMe SSD as a bootable C-drive in a pc that is like 9 years old for the oldest parts now.


----------



## Arctucas (May 23, 2017)

2 x 960EVO RAID0


----------

