HDD/SSD Drive Speed Thread

A mildly interesting comparison between my 840 EVO and 850 EVO

uiyiMxi.png


ddEPhmJ.png
 
Leaderboard updated!

I noticed too that the 840 EVO 250GB in my laptop benches faster than the 850 EVO 250GB in my desktop, but the 850 Pro 250GB in the HTPC benches faster than both. However, some people's 840s are faster than my 850 Pro. The speed depends on a few different things I guess and I guess each drive is slightly different.
 
Last edited:
salvage-this said:
I get the feeling that it was bottlenecked by the onboard RAID for the motherboard. I would love to test that setup again with a proper controller.

Great scores Shane!
Click to expand...

Yeah,That skipped my mind actually..some of those Raid cards are very expensive though. :eek:,Well the decent ones anyway.
 
Just look how Samsung is dominating our drive boards and how G.Skill is dominating our RAM disk boards! :good:
 
New build with 3x 250GB 840 Evo's in RAID 0



Really impressed with the performance of my new rig, this is almost exactly 3x the R/W performance of a single SSD. I don't know if it's due to the new chipset or what, as Salvage had 4x SSDs in RAID 0 and barely got a better score than just 2.
 
Ok it appears I had the wrong driver. Here is with right driver.
Still not 2GB read. Is there something else i can do?

intel 750.png
 
hogdaddy said:
Ok it appears I had the wrong driver. Here is with right driver.
Still not 2GB read. Is there something else i can do?

View attachment 6441
Click to expand...
That is much better. It could be due to a number of reasons, the first that comes to mind is that is shares PCI-E lanes with the GPU so it's possible that you are simply maxing out on available PCI-E lanes.

Check the benchmarks for the card, they got around 1,900MB/s here which is pretty close: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1507
 
No official notepad info, but I did a test on a rig I built over the weekend. This was a 256GB Samsung 850 Pro.

10997611_10153714876211349_5443796274472994678_n.jpg
 
OK I found out why it's not reporting true speeds after posting in the Intel forum.
"Due to limited support for large queue depths and multiple workers, the full performance of NVMe SSDs could not be seen in Crystal Disk Mark 3.0.4 . For example, the maximum read bandwidth on this build for one NVMe drive was ~ 1.5 GB/s and the maximum IOPs was ~ 150K IOPs."
I have to use Crystal Disk 5.02


5.02 last.png
 
Last edited:
hogdaddy said:
OK I found out why it's not reporting true speeds after posting in the Intel forum.
"Due to limited support for large queue depths and multiple workers, the full performance of NVMe SSDs could not be seen in Crystal Disk Mark 3.0.4 . For example, the maximum read bandwidth on this build for one NVMe drive was ~ 1.5 GB/s and the maximum IOPs was ~ 150K IOPs."
I have to use Crystal Disk 5.02


View attachment 6443
Click to expand...
Makes sense, and good to know. Looks like these NVMe drives will need to use the 5GB tests. Jason, want to update this to the OP?
 
Hey all, thanks for the new benchmarks! When I get a free moment I'll add these to the leaderboard!
 
Not sure why the 4K speeds are so slow, but I've added your read and write scores to the leaderboard.
 
Thanks! Do you think we should separate benchmarks into separate classes for mechanical, SATA SSDs, and PCI-E SSDs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top