# My SDD's read and write is very slow. anyone know why?



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

I know my motherboard is too old but I bought a sata3 card based on pci-e slot.
But today I found out it's always very slow.
And it should be faster even the ssd on sata2.
Any ideas?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 31, 2016)

That's like spot-on for SATA 1.5 Gb/s speeds (187.5 MB/s)...


----------



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's like spot-on for SATA 1.5 Gb/s speeds (187.5 MB/s)...


Yep. But why - -


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2016)

akagilnc said:


> I know my motherboard is too old but I bought a sata3 card based on pci-e slot.



Which PCI-E slot did you put the SATA3 card, and which SATA3 card are you using?


----------



## Hood (Dec 31, 2016)

Try ATTO Diskbench, it's what most companies use to show fastest sequential reads and writes in their specs (uses compressible data).  AS SSD, on the other hand, uses incompressible data and is considered to be more consistent with real-world usage, therefore it gives much lower results.  Also, the SATA card you bought might be slowing things down.  Either way, the TR150 is no speed demon at best.  The main benefit of using an SSD as boot drive is the low latency (nearly instant file access), the sequential speeds only come into play when moving large files.  On SATA 2 (3GB/s), you will only have half the advertised sequential speed, since the specs are measured on a SATA 3 (6GB/s) port.  Your 480GB TR150 advertises speeds of 550/530, so on SATA2 using ATTO expect 275/265 or less.  The TR150 is very cheap, and it's one of the slowest  modern SSDs in real-world testing...


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2016)

Hood said:


> The TR150 is very cheap, and it's one of the slowest modern SSDs in real-world testing...



You make it sound like the TR150 is so slow. In real world testing and actual use, there is very little difference between the TR150 and the fastest SATA 6Gb/s drive on the market.

Either way, the numbers shouldn't be anywhere near as low as the OP is getting, so something is wrong.


----------



## natr0n (Dec 31, 2016)

You might need updated drivers and or firmware update for your sata3 card.

I had to do that with a asmedia sata3 card.


----------



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Which PCI-E slot did you put the SATA3 card, and which SATA3 card are you using?


In the First PCIE x16 slot.
The sata3 card name is "
*Syba 2 Port USB 3.0 SATA III PCIe 2.0 x 1 Card VLI/AS Media Chipsets with Standard and Low Profile Brackets SD-PEX50063*"



Hood said:


> Try ATTO Diskbench, it's what most companies use to show fastest sequential reads and writes in their specs (uses compressible data).  AS SSD, on the other hand, uses incompressible data and is considered to be more consistent with real-world usage, therefore it gives much lower results.  Also, the SATA card you bought might be slowing things down.  Either way, the TR150 is no speed demon at best.  The main benefit of using an SSD as boot drive is the low latency (nearly instant file access), the sequential speeds only come into play when moving large files.  On SATA 2 (3GB/s), you will only have half the advertised sequential speed, since the specs are measured on a SATA 3 (6GB/s) port.  Your 480GB TR150 advertises speeds of 550/530, so on SATA2 using ATTO expect 275/265 or less.  The TR150 is very cheap, and it's one of the slowest  modern SSDs in real-world testing...


Before I bought the sata3 card. I used the ssd in sata2 and the test is almost like 100/100, Never higher than 200



natr0n said:


> You might need updated drivers and or firmware update for your sata3 card.
> 
> I had to do that with a asmedia sata3 card.


I tried. I use IObit Driver Booster to update all the driver. But it's not helpful

I also tried to download the drivers from the sata3 card manual. All the driver isn't support win10
I also installed them but looks like it's not helpful



newtekie1 said:


> Which PCI-E slot did you put the SATA3 card, and which SATA3 card are you using?





Hood said:


> Try ATTO Diskbench, it's what most companies use to show fastest sequential reads and writes in their specs (uses compressible data).  AS SSD, on the other hand, uses incompressible data and is considered to be more consistent with real-world usage, therefore it gives much lower results.  Also, the SATA card you bought might be slowing things down.  Either way, the TR150 is no speed demon at best.  The main benefit of using an SSD as boot drive is the low latency (nearly instant file access), the sequential speeds only come into play when moving large files.  On SATA 2 (3GB/s), you will only have half the advertised sequential speed, since the specs are measured on a SATA 3 (6GB/s) port.  Your 480GB TR150 advertises speeds of 550/530, so on SATA2 using ATTO expect 275/265 or less.  The TR150 is very cheap, and it's one of the slowest  modern SSDs in real-world testing...





natr0n said:


> You might need updated drivers and or firmware update for your sata3 card.
> 
> I had to do that with a asmedia sata3 card.


I add more image.
The ATTO test is funny. Looks like it's hard to break up 206MB/S


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2016)

akagilnc said:


> In the First PCIE x16 slot.
> The sata3 card name is "
> *Syba 2 Port USB 3.0 SATA III PCIe 2.0 x 1 Card VLI/AS Media Chipsets with Standard and Low Profile Brackets SD-PEX50063*"



I'd almost guarantee the problem is the SATA card.  Those combo cards, and really most Syba cards in my experience, are garbage.

You want something dedicated to just SATA 6Gb/s.  Something like this from Highpoint: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816115072

Though, I'd just stick the SSD in one of the motherboard's SATA 3Gb/s ports and be done with it.  SSDs are fast because of their low access times.  Raw throughput doesn't really help in real-world use, and raw throughput is all you gain by using SATA 6Gbps.  Also, if you plan to boot your OS from the SSD(and you should) then using the motherboard SATA ports makes things a heck of a lot easier.


----------



## natr0n (Dec 31, 2016)

https://msi.com/Motherboard/P55GD65.html#hero-specification

plug the card in your 2nd blue slot should be faster around 350-400.

http://www.sybausa.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=64_77_86&product_id=176&filter=83,19,72
drivers on this page might want to try.

I have this card uses same chip asmedia max i ever got out of it was 350-400mb sec
on a *pci-e x4 slot. try different slots see what works best.*


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2016)

natr0n said:


> https://msi.com/Motherboard/P55GD65.html#hero-specification
> 
> plug the card in your 2nd blue slot should be faster around 350-400.



I doubt it.  From what he said, it is already plugged into the first blue slot.  That's also why his GPU is reading as running at x8, because it is already in the second blue slot.


----------



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

natr0n said:


> https://msi.com/Motherboard/P55GD65.html#hero-specification
> 
> plug the card in your 2nd blue slot should be faster around 350-400.
> 
> ...


I can't install the driver. 
I will try other slot



newtekie1 said:


> I'd almost guarantee the problem is the SATA card.  Those combo cards, and really most Syba cards in my experience, are garbage.
> 
> You want something dedicated to just SATA 6Gb/s.  Something like this from Highpoint: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816115072
> 
> Though, I'd just stick the SSD in one of the motherboard's SATA 3Gb/s ports and be done with it.  SSDs are fast because of their low access times.  Raw throughput doesn't really help in real-world use, and raw throughput is all you gain by using SATA 6Gbps.  Also, if you plan to boot your OS from the SSD(and you should) then using the motherboard SATA ports makes things a heck of a lot easier.



I tried. And the result is below


Is that means I can only get full speed after I change my CPU and motherBoard - -

Left one is my old ssd, Only 128 g and it's my system disk.
Should I change my system disk to new ssd?
All the test done in stat2


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 31, 2016)

It is pcie x1 card it can't have more. Bad choice for a controller. 

You could take some kingston or plextor pcie SSD cards that natively can boot on legacy PC's.


----------



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> It is pcie x1 card it can't have more. Bad choice for a controller.
> 
> You could take some kingston or plextor pcie SSD cards that natively can boot on legacy PC's.


Agree. I forget there are PCIE SSD in this world  - -
But I will keep it for now. When I update my computer's cpu and MB in 2017 1 or 2 Q. it's will get the full performance.



natr0n said:


> https://msi.com/Motherboard/P55GD65.html#hero-specification
> 
> plug the card in your 2nd blue slot should be faster around 350-400.
> 
> ...


I tried. The x8 slot is the fastest, but almost same.
I give up (sad)

I will try this sata3 card on another old computer . It have a x4-641 AMD cpu, I can't remember the MB's name, Hope this card can work on that one


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 31, 2016)

akagilnc said:


> Agree. I forget there are PCIE SSD in this world  - -
> But I will keep it for now. When I update my computer's cpu and MB in 2017 1 or 2 Q. it's will get the full performance.



I have a feeling that your native intel controller performs better than that PCIE card.


----------



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I have a feeling that your native intel controller performs better than that PCIE card.


So sad - -.
I just wanna use sata 3 lol


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 31, 2016)

akagilnc said:


> I just wanna use sata 3 lol



Upgrade, upgrade!......


----------



## akagilnc (Dec 31, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Upgrade, upgrade!......


It's not a good time to upgrade - -. I already upgraded my GPU to rx480 - -


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 31, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> It is pcie x1 card it can't have more. Bad choice for a controller.
> 
> You could take some kingston or plextor pcie SSD cards that natively can boot on legacy PC's.


Even if it is PCIe 1.0, it should be good for 250 MB/s.  Mobo is PCIe 2.0 which is good for 500 MB/s.  That's bi-directional.  It's not the problem.

I'm thinking that card claims it is SATA 6 Gb/s but it is really SATA 1.5 Gb/s.  I'd return it and get something different.


Edit: Reviews are poor, one even reports similar issues you're seeing:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815124148

The only good review comes across as a paid ad.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2016)

akagilnc said:


> I tried. And the result is below
> View attachment 82584
> 
> Is that means I can only get full speed after I change my CPU and motherBoard - -
> ...



Just leave it with both connected to the motherboard's SATA ports.

Like I said, you won't notice a big difference in real world use when switching to SATA 6Gb/s.  SSDs feel fast because of their extremely low latency.  That won't change when you switch to SATA 6Gb/s.

So don't worry about the benchmarks, just use the computer.  Everything will be fine, the SSDs aren't bad, and you won't be missing much performance.



FordGT90Concept said:


> ven if it is PCIe 1.0, it should be good for 250 MB/s. Mobo is PCIe 2.0 which is good for 500 MB/s. That's bi-directional. It's not the problem.
> 
> I'm thinking that card claims it is SATA 6 Gb/s but it is really SATA 1.5 Gb/s. I'd return it and get something different.



It is surpassing SATA 1.5Gb/s speeds, so I doubt that is the case.  I think it is a combination of two things. First being that the card's controller, while technically supplying 3rd Gen SATA ports, the controller isn't fast enough to actually supply anywhere near those speeds.

Plus, the P55 chipset, limited its PCI-E 2.0 lanes to 2.5GT/s or ~250MB/s, which is PCI-E 1.0 speeds. Though I don't know if the lanes coming off the CPU were like this too, or just the lanes from the chipset.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 31, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only good review comes across as a paid ad.



 That's the serious flaw with paid  product reviews aside from what must be many others. Essentially a company is paying  people with no morals, or who are so desperate for money to lie

 I've only noticed Amazon is honest enough ( to some degree ),  to actually tag the paid  reviews with the label stating that they're paid reviews

 And it's all hidden behind people saying "I think this products great" even though they got it for free, but your opinion changes greatly when you use hard earned money to pay for a disappointing item

Off topic, sorry i digress


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 31, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> It is surpassing SATA 1.5Gb/s speeds, so I doubt that is the case.  I think it is a combination of two things. First being that the card's controller, while technically supplying 3rd Gen SATA ports, the controller isn't fast enough to actually supply anywhere near those speeds.


Maybe, maybe not.  It could technically burst over depending on how the software testing it is coded (e.g. actually elapsed time is 1050 ms and not 1000).

I would only try two things before definitively blaming the card:
1) Try another SATA cable.
2) Try the SSD in another system.

If the former doesn't improve it and the latter does, that card needs to go.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 31, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  It could technically burst over depending on how the software testing it is coded (e.g. actually elapsed time is 1050 ms and not 1000).
> 
> I would only try two things before definitively blaming the card:
> 1) Try another SATA cable.
> ...



The long sequential tests are hitting ~200MB/s.  That isn't burst speed, that's sustained speed.

And when he connected the drive to the SATA port on the motherboard the sustain speeds went up to ~260MB/s.  IMO, that is pretty definitive proof the card needs to go.


----------



## akagilnc (Jan 2, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Even if it is PCIe 1.0, it should be good for 250 MB/s.  Mobo is PCIe 2.0 which is good for 500 MB/s.  That's bi-directional.  It's not the problem.
> 
> I'm thinking that card claims it is SATA 6 Gb/s but it is really SATA 1.5 Gb/s.  I'd return it and get something different.
> 
> ...


Yep. But Amazon send my money back, For free. That's good



newtekie1 said:


> Just leave it with both connected to the motherboard's SATA ports.
> 
> Like I said, you won't notice a big difference in real world use when switching to SATA 6Gb/s.  SSDs feel fast because of their extremely low latency.  That won't change when you switch to SATA 6Gb/s.
> 
> ...


Yes. I will use them.
But if I wanna buy a better SSD in future, Which one will be your favorite?



jboydgolfer said:


> That's the serious flaw with paid  product reviews aside from what must be many others. Essentially a company is paying  people with no morals, or who are so desperate for money to lie
> 
> I've only noticed Amazon is honest enough ( to some degree ),  to actually tag the paid  reviews with the label stating that they're paid reviews
> 
> ...


Ha. Maybe. But whatever. Amazon sent my money back for free with out sent the card back to them



FordGT90Concept said:


> Maybe, maybe not.  It could technically burst over depending on how the software testing it is coded (e.g. actually elapsed time is 1050 ms and not 1000).
> 
> I would only try two things before definitively blaming the card:
> 1) Try another SATA cable.
> ...


I changed cable. unuseless.
I will try it on another computer. AMD platform with x4 641. And update the result later



newtekie1 said:


> The long sequential tests are hitting ~200MB/s.  That isn't burst speed, that's sustained speed.
> 
> And when he connected the drive to the SATA port on the motherboard the sustain speeds went up to ~260MB/s.  IMO, that is pretty definitive proof the card needs to go.


Yep. Definitily agree. But I want test it on another system, X4 641 amd platform in my parents's home.


----------



## Athlonite (Jan 2, 2017)

if you still find it's a pile of poo try this card instead I bought one for a mate whos very happy with it 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815158365

his mobo only had 4 sata ports onboard so needed more he uses this card for his SSD's and boots windows from it works pretty damn good and is only a little slower than mine when using the same SSD's on my SATAIII ports on my mobo


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 2, 2017)

You guys are looking way too far into this. There is a very simple answer:

The P55 chipset runs PCI-E at 2.0 at (*2.5GT/s*,) which means that PCI-E from the PCH is actually running at 1.1 speeds (full 2.0 is actually 5.0GT/s.) Do a little bit of math and you'll find out really fast that the PCI-E card is probably just limited by the PCI-E bandwidth from the PCH. In other words, you can't use the 1x slots and expect anything over 250MB/s before factoring in ECC overhead.

http://ark.intel.com/products/42690/Intel-P55-Express-Chipset


----------



## Toothless (Jan 2, 2017)

Today is the day I see a 5-post multipost string of posts.

Also the reason I stick to named and trusted brands when it comes to techie stuffs.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 7, 2017)

Any option in the utility to switch to AHCI instead of IDE ? This could be your cause of the slowness.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 7, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> I've only noticed Amazon is honest enough ( to some degree ), to actually tag the paid reviews with the label stating that they're paid reviews



You get that with Newegg too, in that it will add the tag verified purchaser if it was purchased from Newegg.  Any other review is suspect, because in my mind I am wondering what motivated them to review on that site in particular.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 8, 2017)

Aquinus said:


> You guys are looking way too far into this. There is a very simple answer:
> 
> The P55 chipset runs PCI-E at 2.0 at (*2.5GT/s*,) which means that PCI-E from the PCH is actually running at 1.1 speeds (full 2.0 is actually 5.0GT/s.) Do a little bit of math and you'll find out really fast that the PCI-E card is probably just limited by the PCI-E bandwidth from the PCH. In other words, you can't use the 1x slots and expect anything over 250MB/s before factoring in ECC overhead.
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/42690/Intel-P55-Express-Chipset



I brought this up earlier.  But he had the card plugged into one of the x16 slots wired to the CPU no the PCH.


----------



## areamike (Jan 31, 2017)

Prima.Vera said:


> Any option in the utility to switch to AHCI instead of IDE ? This could be your cause of the slowness.


OP did you check this? I was going to say the same thing. You should be able to set your SATA ports to AHCI in your BIOS.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 31, 2017)

Seems like and alignment issue. 

Try this.

http://www.howtogeek.com/270358/how...id-state-drive-by-re-aligning-its-partitions/


----------

