# SSD slow, probably



## Frick (Sep 8, 2015)

I won't say I'm dissapointed, because that sweet access time is the true golden duck or whatever. But it's still ... not as fast as I assumed it would be. It's a cheap drive, so I wasn't expecting much, but I feel it should be faster.

It is connected to a SATA III connector. It's set to ACHI mode. The basic stuff. It's a new system, yes I've installed all my stuff now (well almost) and it's the same as when I had nothing installed. The system was freshly rebooted when the benchmark ran, the only thing in the background was a passive TPU and Spotify.

During the test I had the resource monitor on and no strange activity anywhere, the same goes for processes and so on.

For the folks that can't see images it's from HD Tune, it ranges from 187-216MB/s. Systems specs are as follows.

MSI B85M-E45
Celeron G1840
2 x 4GB 1600 Mhz
Crucial BX100 120GB
WD Blue 1TB x 2 (WD10EZEX)
Cooler Master G550M
Windows 7 Pro with all the updates installed.

The drivers are all installed now too btw, from the MSI webpage. I tried Intel SRT, and it got even slower (peak 190MB/s).

TRIM is on.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 8, 2015)

Did you look to see if there are any firmware updates for these?


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 8, 2015)

HDTune doesn't work well with SSDs, IMO. Try ATTO and CrystalDiskMark.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 8, 2015)

most likely is due to being a low capacity drive that is way to full.


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2015)

AthlonX2 said:


> most likely is due to being a low capacity drive that is way to full.



40% full, or thereabouts.



t_ski said:


> Did you look to see if there are any firmware updates for these?



Newp, will do.



newtekie1 said:


> HDTune doesn't work well with SSDs, IMO. Try ATTO and CrystalDiskMark.



Crystaldiskmark was sorta low too, will post screenshots.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 9, 2015)

So did HDTune upgrade there software for SSDs? They didn't use to support it

Don't use Crystal Disk use AS SSD


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2015)

Jetster said:


> So did HDTune upgrade there software for SSDs? They didn't use to support it
> 
> Don't use Crystal Disk use AS SSD



I've no idea, but my speeds are lower than some reviews i've seen on the drive.

EDIT: AS SSD






EDIT: Updated firmware.






EDIT: Could it matter which SATA III port it's plugged into? It's in port 3 I think, the WD's are in 1 and 2 respectively.

BTW, the write speeds seems to be in order, but not the read.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 9, 2015)

Maybe its the third party SATA III like ASMedia. and the drivers are wrong?

That's definitely SATA II speeds


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Sep 9, 2015)

If your board have 2 different controller like a Marvell controller and something else for you sata ports plugging into different sata ports would affect the speed. You could try.

Is the ssd filled up a lot by the way? That can reduce its speed. The rest of your ssd speed looks fine except for the sequential though.


----------



## SuperSoph_WD (Sep 9, 2015)

Hey there, @Frick

I think you should try swapping the SATA ports, just to see if that will improve the performance and the transfer speeds in general. 
The WD Blue HDDs won't be affected even if they are plugged in the SATA II ports. Generally, a mechanical HDD is limited in its throughput by Platter density and RPMs which prevent it from exceeding SATA II bandwidth (3 Gb/s - max 300 MB/s). One of the few performance gains for a SATA III Hard Drive on a SATA III interface is the burst rate, and it only benefits the first second or two of read/writes.

Try plugging the SSD in the first available SATA III port instead. 

Hope this helps. Good luck! 
SuperSoph_WD


----------



## Jetster (Sep 9, 2015)

Your board has two SATA II ports


----------



## Frick (Sep 9, 2015)

Jetster said:


> Your board has two SATA II ports



And I only hade a DVD drive connected to one of them.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 9, 2015)

You also might want to check in the BIOS to make sure the SATA ports aren't set to run in SATAII mode, some boards have an option for that.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 9, 2015)

Frick said:


> And I only hade a DVD drive connected to one of them.



Just noticed your system specs, PM me your address, got something to send you (for free of course)


----------



## t_ski (Sep 9, 2015)

Jetster said:


> Maybe its the third party SATA III like ASMedia. and the drivers are wrong?
> 
> That's definitely SATA II speeds


Double-check and make sure all of your drivers are up to date.


----------



## Frick (Sep 14, 2015)

Haven't had much time lately, but all the drivers are updated and the latest versions. Yesterday the drive was a wee bit faster for some reason, but not as fast as it should be. Boot time increased until it hit a roof of sorts at about 30 seconds to a working desktop (manually entered password).

No options for setting them to SATA II.


----------



## t_ski (Sep 14, 2015)

Are you using a Sata3 cable?


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 14, 2015)

t_ski said:


> Are you using a Sata3 cable?


Sata3 cable ??? 
Unless you have a really bad cable they are all the same


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 14, 2015)

t_ski said:


> Are you using a Sata3 cable?


----------



## CounterSpell (Sep 14, 2015)

try the benchs with all the sata ports. your mobo has 4x SATA 6Gb / s

maybe you put the ssd on a 3gbs port...


----------



## Kursah (Sep 14, 2015)

I have seen cheap/crappy SATA cables cause issues, but usually they work or they don't. It's not like PATA where you needed an 80 lead ribbon with 2X the ground wires to be able to maintain maximum theoretical speeds.

I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on benchmarks. I'm sure you're updated to 7 SP1, otherwise you might face some issues there as well, plus likely your installation media is SP1 even if it's a few years old. B85 + SSD's (Including the 120GB BX100 like you have) has always worked out great in my experience. no noticeable difference between that chipset and the Z8/9x chipsets in my experience. Never did I feel the need to benchmark them because the systems always performed quickly and had great response rates.

I would almost wonder if another fresh OS install should be in order...just for the sake of ensuring nothing odd happened. Are you installing from DVD or USB? (I prefer USB, takes about 12-20 minutes on most SSD equipped systems)

I guess before you do that, can you take a look at your WIndows System events in Event Viewer? Maybe filter it for critical, error and warnings so you can focus on those issues and see if anything Disk(x) related is being reported? I hate to give in to an OS reinstall unless necessary. Wish I had your exact build in my hands so I could check it all out myself too, I love diagnosing odd issues like this. 

I would say go into BIOS and turn of any extra Intel chipset features you don't use. RST comes to mind. Also make sure you have SMART reporting enabled, many boards have this disabled by default...which is ridiculous.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 14, 2015)

How do those speeds compare to established numbers for that particular SSD?  I ask, because 120GB SSD's are usually slower than others, are they not?  If we're comparing the numbers to what we know of 240GB and above SSD's, then I can see why everyone is scratching their heads.  Or am I just totally off-base here?


----------



## Static~Charge (Sep 14, 2015)

I found this in your motherboard's manual:

*Storage*
Intel B85 Express chipset
4x SATA 6Gb/s ports: SATA1-4
2x SATA 3Gb/s ports: SATA5-6​
Double-check to make sure your SSD is plugged into SATA1 - SATA4.

Also, the latest Intel Rapid Storage Technology driver for your chipset is version 14.6.0.1029, released 26-Aug-2015.


----------



## Kursah (Sep 14, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> How do those speeds compare to established numbers for that particular SSD?  I ask, because 120GB SSD's are usually slower than others, are they not?  If we're comparing the numbers to what we know of 240GB and above SSD's, then I can see why everyone is scratching their heads.  Or am I just totally off-base here?



My Samsung 840 120GB is slower than the 240GB, but only by about 20-30MB/s in synthetic benchmarks fwir. The BX100 are pretty solid SSD's, I feel he is close, and it could be a benchmark thing more-so than real world results, but usually that stuff is pretty consistent. Being an OS drive slows it a little too..but again nothing too major usually.

Honestly, if the system boots quickly and is snappy, and does fast file transfers, it's probably fine. But I think he stated it takes 30+ seconds to get to login/desktop, which on a fresh installation should take closer to half that in my experience with that SSD part and others, and that chipset. Though admittedly when I use a B85 board it's the Biostar B85S3+ if at all possible, it's a bruiser that Newegg keeps at sub-$60 that kicks major ass. But this MSI part should be fairly similar in performance I would imagine. Though the slowest CPU I've ever used was the Intel Pentium G3220, on up to i7 4790k's, all with similar results.

I agree with Static, recheck what port(s) you're using. Even consider placing DVD and SSD on the Intel-side and disabling the extra ports (though shouldn't need to).


----------



## Batou1986 (Sep 14, 2015)

Kursah said:


> But I think he stated it takes 30+ seconds to get to login/desktop, which on a fresh installation should take closer to half that


agree on a fresh install i don't even see the login screen unless windows is updating or something.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Sep 14, 2015)

Kursah said:


> My Samsung 840 120GB is slower than the 240GB, but only by about 20-30MB/s in synthetic benchmarks fwir. The BX100 are pretty solid SSD's, I feel he is close, and it could be a benchmark thing more-so than real world results, but usually that stuff is pretty consistent. Being an OS drive slows it a little too..but again nothing too major usually.
> 
> Honestly, if the system boots quickly and is snappy, and does fast file transfers, it's probably fine. But I think he stated it takes 30+ seconds to get to login/desktop, which on a fresh installation should take closer to half that in my experience with that SSD part and others, and that chipset. Though admittedly when I use a B85 board it's the Biostar B85S3+ if at all possible, it's a bruiser that Newegg keeps at sub-$60 that kicks major ass. But this MSI part should be fairly similar in performance I would imagine. Though the slowest CPU I've ever used was the Intel Pentium G3220, on up to i7 4790k's, all with similar results.
> 
> I agree with Static, recheck what port(s) you're using. Even consider placing DVD and SSD on the Intel-side and disabling the extra ports (though shouldn't need to).


 
Thanks for such a detailed reply.  I agree the long boot time is weird, but it's the only thing that jumped out at me.  Personally, other than that, his numbers look close to the M500 120GB my Fiance has, that's why I had to ask.


----------



## Static~Charge (Sep 14, 2015)

Frick said:


> For the folks that can't see images it's from HD Tune, it ranges from 187-216MB/s. Systems specs are as follows.
> 
> _[ snip ]_
> 
> Windows 7 Pro with all the updates installed.



"All the updates installed" . . . hmmm, I wonder if Windows 7 could be downloading your free Windows 10 update in the background? _That_ would definitely impact your drive's performance. Check if "Update for Microsoft Windows (KB3035583)" is installed.


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 14, 2015)

@Frick Aside from the possibility of the wrong SATA port, bad cable, or wrong BIOS settings, the BX100 shouldn't be incredibly fast. SM2246EN has really bad consistency and even though the BX100's firmware is more custom, it can't escape the 2246EN's shortcomings. Random reads are also not a strength for the BX100. I also find that Win 7 does have slower boot times overall than Win 8.1 and 10 (UEFI install); this does not mean really slow HDD times, but it also isn't very zippy even with 850 EVOs.

Also, how much has the drive been filled? I don't know about 2246EN but SF2281 has horrible performance when the drive has been filled close to 75%.


----------



## Jeffredo (Sep 15, 2015)

tabascosauz said:


> @Frick SM2246EN has really bad consistency and even though the BX100's firmware is more custom, it can't escape the 2246EN's shortcomings.



You'll never notice in day to day use.  I'm using a PC right now with a PNY Optima 240 GB with that controller and it browses and games just as well as any of my other SSDs.  Benchmarks tend to make people think they have a turkey when the vast majority of the time you couldn't tell the difference if someone swapped it for a very fast (benchmarking) SSD.


----------



## krusha03 (Sep 16, 2015)

Here is my MX100 256GB on a G620 and a Sata 2 port. So it seems that your BX100 really score as if on Sata 2 port or the capacity has a really big impact. Can you test it on another machine?

However with that being said i don't notice any difference in daily use between now and when it was hooked up to the rig in my spec.


----------



## Frick (Sep 16, 2015)

@krusha03 Now I'll just have to find some time to tinker with the damn thing.


----------



## krusha03 (Sep 16, 2015)

Frick said:


> @krusha03 Now I'll just have to find some time to tinker with the damn thing.


The easiest thing to do would be to just hook it up to a machine with known working Sata III and run the benchmark again. In the end I wouldn't bother with it since it makes little difference in real life


----------



## Frick (Sep 17, 2015)

So, uh, you know how I was sure I had it in a SATA III port and how the DVD was in the SATA II (and how I actually did double check)? Turns out it was the other way round. Part of my cars license number is DOH and I feel it is very fitting. 

I blame work and being tired but that is not correct, but I still stick with it.


----------



## krusha03 (Sep 17, 2015)

Frick said:


> So, uh, you know how I was sure I had it in a SATA III port and how the DVD was in the SATA II (and how I actually did double check)? Turns out it was the other way round. Part of my cars license number is DOH and I feel it is very fitting.
> 
> I blame work and being tired but that is not correct, but I still stick with it.


And feeling like the PC is faster now?


----------



## Frick (Sep 17, 2015)

krusha03 said:


> And feeling like the PC is faster now?



ACtually yes, but I'm really weak for placebos.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 17, 2015)

I have not read the thread, just scanned through it, but... Run ATTO and see what it says as that is the software most SSD MFG use to list peak speeds... HDTach and the others will not.


----------



## Frick (Sep 17, 2015)

EarthDog said:


> I have not read the thread, just scanned through it, but... Run ATTO and see what it says as that is the software most SSD MFG use to list peak speeds... HDTach and the others will not.



Loooooooollll it turned out I had it connected to a SATAII port.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 17, 2015)

Good, glad it was that easy! 

When in doubt with speeds, always check ATTO against it. You would have seen a lot more clearly that it was banging off the SATA2 3Gbps limit.


----------



## Jeffredo (Sep 17, 2015)

Frick said:


> ACtually yes, but I'm really weak for placebos.



I went from an SATA II motherboard with a Phenom II X4 to an Intel SATA III with an i5 and I honestly couldn't tell the difference in Windows boot and program loading.  Even SATA II is so much faster than a spindle hard drive.


----------



## braydenberger (Sep 18, 2015)

A solid-state drive will speed up everything that requires disk access, from boot times and application launches to in-game load screens.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 21, 2015)

braydenberger said:


> A solid-state drive will speed up everything that requires disk access, from boot times and application launches to in-game load screens.


O...k...


----------

