Hey, Jow Forums, could you help me figure out why my ssd speeds are slow? I bought a Crucial MX500 500gb ssd today and the speeds are quite low compared to other results.
I honestly don't know, but could my rig affect how well it performs? I'm using an old rig from 2010, can post a speccy on another post.
Other urls found in this thread:
tomshardware.com
twitter.com
Here's a picture from a random review for comparison. I did try resetting bios to default, new sata cable and another sata slot as well.
Funny that in a sata 2 slot it actually performs better in most tests
I don't know but if you want to feel better about yours here's mine, a cheap generic SSD I installed yesterday. Still pretty awesome coming from an HDD.
Yeah and it's a lot better.
Cruxial isn't Samsung.
Samsung controls the production of the nand and the controller. This every unit is guaranteed to have the same quality.
Spector patches hurt ssd speeds pretty significantly for me
post speccy
This is my 480GB Seagate 600 SSD from 2013.
Oh you're right, sorry.
I didn't even read your results and just assumed mine would be worse, kek. It's literally a no brand SSD from Japan.
It's possibly your chipset.
My 850EVO underperforms because I have an AM3 chipset that's 8 years old by by now as well, and it's consistently worse at IOPS measurements. That + I've overclocked via FSB (locked multi) meaning it's fucked from that angle as well (I know my USB 3.0 is broken and only works at 2.0 speeds because I've OC'd via FSB).
Phenom II btw
It shouldn't make this large difference, there's something else going on. The patches were used in that review as well.
The cpu is oc'd to 4,4, if that even makes a difference.
That might be it.
Does your mobo have sata2 only? I made this mistake before
It's most likely your chipset, see if there are some new chipset drivers
make sure it's plugged into a grey SATA port
It does have sata 3 and that's what I'm using currently. I have sata 2 results above.
I'm using a fresh windows install and I got the drivers from the mobo support page, but those are years old by now and not supported anymore.
My guess would be since it's a 3rd party SATA 6Gb/s controller it can't actually reach full speeds.
If it were integrated Intel SATA 6Gb/s then you'd be more likely to see full speeds.
Tldr; your platform is just old.
That's a good guess. I will have to try this on my friend's pc some other day, which should confirm where the problem is, but I'm stuck on this for the rest of the week and I'm trying to solve the problem if it's a problem I caused somehow.
Honestly that's not bad for a 5 year old SSD.
What's a spector patch
Should I post my 500gb we blue hd from 2006
850 EVO on M4A89GTDPRO/USB3
This thing can reach 90k IOPS, but not here.
Probably chipset, like I've said. Try other drivers, if not, change platforms if it bothers you that much.
As you and other anons suggested it probably is a problem with the old chipset. I found this on google tomshardware.com
Doesn't seem like there's anything more I can try now. Thanks for the replies
could be as simple as a faulty drive.
b-b-but japanesecapacitors.meme
That's true, but I can't know for sure before I test everything else first.
They're slow because you fell for the bargain bin ssd meme. Just stop being poor and buy a real ssd.
do it
Spector vulnerability patches degraded performance under certain workloads. Mainly Syscalls.
Pic related, my motherboard has a BIOS update with microcode patch for my CPU. First BIOS update in 2 years.
>not running in triple channel
>only 8gb of ram
why even bother?
>4GB 960
>Sabertooth
at least you did two things right.
I used to have triple, but it got faulty over time. The difference in light workloads/gaming is very minimal.
I'm doing the same but with X99 instead of X58
running triple instead of quad channel because one DIMM died and current RAM prices are retarded on top of the performance difference being minimal in most workloads. Simply not worth the money and effort for me to replace it at the moment.
Yeah it's not worth it in most use cases