# SSD speed lower than expected



## Modinstaller (Jan 11, 2016)

Hi

I'm running this SSD http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct240bx200ssd1
On this motherboard http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3833#ov

So the SSD is SATA 3 and mb is SATA 2.
Hence I'm expecting ~285 MBps read & write, since SATA 2 bandwidth is 300 MBps.
However, here's my benchmark :







I'm wondering why the speeds are around 200 MBps instead of 285 MBps, and what I can do about it.
I'm guessing speeds would go significantly up if I upgraded my mb to SATA 3 but I don't think it's worth the real life performance increase I'd get out of this (I only use my PC to play video games, not sure I'd see substantial improvements).
Thoughts ?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

SATA has overhead service traffic. Everything is fine.


----------



## Deeveo (Jan 11, 2016)

There's always some overhead and some SATA3 drives might not be that well optimized for SATA2. Most of the time the maximum sequential speed won't matter so I wouldn't worry about that too much, access time is where SSD makes most of the difference compared to HDD anyway. Like you said you propably won't see much real world difference from moving to SATA3 compatible MB.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

The only BAD things as it is said.... you should have used AHCI mode... not IDE.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 11, 2016)

Make sure your correct drivers are install and your in AHCI mode. But adding a SATA 3 card would be a waste of $


----------



## Mussels (Jan 11, 2016)

Make sure its in AHCI mode as everyone has said and not IDE mode.

Make sure you install the AMD AHCI drivers off the AMD website too, it can help.


----------



## Modinstaller (Jan 11, 2016)

Thanks for the answers 

I set ahci mode in my bios but windows wouldn't boot, so I followed the instructions here and now it works fine.
There are some improvements. I'm still not reaching what I expected, but I guess it's overhead as you said, so thanks again !


----------



## Mussels (Jan 11, 2016)

you'll need to search for a guide to change from IDE to AHCI, as windows doesnt let you change it directly. SSD's should not be run on IDE mode, it will make them wear out and fail quicker with extended use.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2016)

You have to do the AHCI swap stuff for it to work.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

You both did even read his last post? He solved it all already...


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> You both did even read his last post? He solved it all already...



Misread the last part of his post lol


----------



## Mussels (Jan 11, 2016)

i missed the tag/linkwhere he said he followed the instructions to swap it, my bad.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

I have to admit the score popped up very much by just enabling the AHCI Seconds I don't recommend using AMD AHCI driver on older chipsets... they usually end up working slower vs MS AHCI... I have also BSOD at boot-up with them  (at work I use AMD 880G + SB850 Chipset capricious gigabyte crap)


----------



## Modinstaller (Jan 11, 2016)

If you don't recommend then I won't install any drivers for this.

I mainly wrote about the problem I had and how I solved it in case anyone reads this thread and has the same problem  didn't mean to confuse you guys.

Anyway, thread is pretty much solved unless anyone has additional suggestions on how to speed up my SSD some more. Right now I'm pretty much happy with the result, you've been more helpful than I had anticipated, so many thanks


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2016)

Unluckily AMD is just slow in SATA land. If you want to be really disappointed try raid out. Even my AMD based server is getting bullshit results with the onboard RAID.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Unluckily AMD is just slow in SATA land. If you want to be really disappointed try raid out. Even my AMD based server is getting bullshit results with the onboard RAID.



Well using HDD's not that bad... SSD? Yes pretty much screwed.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Well using HDD's not that bad... SSD? Yes pretty much screwed.



My crosshair 5 has an intel controller luckily, I wish my server had something I need to pick up a pci-e raid card for the damn thing.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 11, 2016)

I own an BX200 960GB SSD and they're kinda lackluster performance-wise, especially on writes compared to higher-end and more expensive SSD's like the Samsung 850 series. But for the price, they're still faster than a mechanical drive and consume less power too.

I wouldn't worry much about your performance tests, there is overhead and different chipsets may or may not be able to fully saturate the rated specs for bandwidth as well. And being on AMD's gear is slower as @cdawall mentioned before. Regardless your performance should still be quite nice and enjoyable. 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9756/...60gb-ssd-review-crucials-first-tlc-nand-ssd/8

Reviews To Read

Hope that helps!


----------



## Countryside (Jan 11, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Misread the last part of his post lol



It happens to the best of us.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

cdawall said:


> My crosshair 5 has an intel controller luckily, I wish my server had something I need to pick up a pci-e raid card for the damn thing.



Just pop in the 950Pro nvme via PCIE adapter and forget the RAID. 

I really never understood why Crucial actually downgraded from MX100 and latter ones were slower... my M550 also maxing out the SATA3.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 11, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Just pop in the 950Pro nvme via PCIE adapter and forget the RAID.
> 
> I really never understood why Crucial actually downgraded from MX100 and latter ones were slower... my M550 also maxing out the SATA3.



I have a stack of 120GB SSD's and want raid 5 for some form of redundancy.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 11, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I really never understood why Crucial actually downgraded from MX100 and latter ones were slower... my M550 also maxing out the SATA3.



With the BX200 series they moved to TLC, using a newer controller, which works great until it runs out of SLC cache then speeds slow way down because the TLC can't keep up, and the cache is too small for big writes. 

They kept their drives cheap which gimped them a bit. Still pretty good drives for cheap, but there's a lot of saturation in this field and with the recent announcement (hopefully not FUD) of a $500 4TB SSD coming soon...drives like this should only get cheaper and cheaper. And its still better than a platter drive. Just not as much as say an 850 Pro or Evo, or even the MX100 or M550's. 

For something like the BX200 it makes a good game/storage SSD which is what I use it for, and it works great!


----------



## n0tiert (Jan 11, 2016)

what ahcix64s.sys version you run atm?

check your Driver:


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 11, 2016)

Ssd perf is board dependent, however overclocking my cpu did up the performance of communication to and fro the ssd.


----------

