QUOTE(fixgd @ May 9 2012, 03:30 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
any comment for my speed? is the speed indicates that mine is sata 2?
Your benchmark does not match specs coz it's bottlenecked by your laptop mobo chipset.
The SSD Thread V2, Faster Better Greener Unbreakable!
|
|
May 9 2012, 04:07 PM
|
|
Elite
8,711 posts Joined: Nov 2007 From: Butterworth, PG / Machang, Kelantan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2012, 04:09 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,882 posts Joined: Feb 2009 From: PJS 9, Bandar Sunway |
|
|
|
May 9 2012, 04:11 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,321 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
anyone updated the latest Crucial m4 firmware? 000F is the latest .. stable?
|
|
|
May 9 2012, 05:14 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Apr 2006 |
|
|
|
May 9 2012, 05:46 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
2,321 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
|
|
|
May 9 2012, 06:04 PM
|
![]()
Junior Member
25 posts Joined: Jan 2011 |
I look difference between Sata 2 and Sata 3 only at read speed?
I'm using Crucial m4 128gb for two weeks now, very satisfied even on Sata 2. Windows experience index jump from 5.9 to 7.8. from lowest to my highest score ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2012, 07:47 PM
|
|
Elite
8,711 posts Joined: Nov 2007 From: Butterworth, PG / Machang, Kelantan |
QUOTE(mikd9999 @ May 9 2012, 06:04 PM) I look difference between Sata 2 and Sata 3 only at read speed? Not that accurate to say like that cozI'm using Crucial m4 128gb for two weeks now, very satisfied even on Sata 2. Windows experience index jump from 5.9 to 7.8. from lowest to my highest score M4 128GB write speed is rated at 200MBps only regardless of SATA3 or SATA2 port used. But if you take other SATA3 SSD rated 300MBps above to compare, you will see the read & write are significantly different, in which SATA3 >> SATA2. |
|
|
May 9 2012, 11:14 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
6,014 posts Joined: Feb 2007 |
My new SSD seems having low write performance than my old SSD
HyperX 5k 120GB, QD32 also sucked ![]() SSDNow V100+ 96GB, formatted once though, this drive is known for its low 4KQD32 write performance ![]() I wonder if changing the sata cable to "6Gbps" would improve abit, yet to try with new raid driver too... EDIT: i got it, get rid of crystalmark, only use ATTO This post has been edited by 1024kbps: May 9 2012, 11:31 PM |
|
|
May 10 2012, 11:53 AM
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
318 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Puchong |
|
|
|
May 10 2012, 12:31 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,882 posts Joined: Feb 2009 From: PJS 9, Bandar Sunway |
|
|
|
May 10 2012, 02:29 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
941 posts Joined: Sep 2008 |
just bought INTEL 330S SSD...not yet benchmark..
but so far im speeding..HAHAHAHAHA |
|
|
May 10 2012, 02:50 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
941 posts Joined: Sep 2008 |
|
|
|
May 10 2012, 04:53 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
319 posts Joined: Jan 2008 |
sata 2 is 3Gb/s, theoritically around 384 MB/s.
please see the different between bit(b) and byte(B) sata 3 is 6Gb/s, theoritically around 768MB/s so if your SSD rated with read speed 512MB/s and write speed 480MB/s you will get less than that if you are plugging your SSD at sata 2 port. get it? |
|
|
|
|
|
May 11 2012, 02:36 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
404 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Melaka |
hi guys, im new here....
after searching thru the net, i found that the Vertex 3 is good and fast with my m14x... http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-...discussion.html but most users here recommend to go for Crucial M4.... but from the link below, the speed is slower... is it due to the firmware? http://www.overclock.net/t/1209763/m14x-crucial-m4-speeds i hope to get a 128GB SSD to optimize my m14x thx |
|
|
May 11 2012, 04:14 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
4,522 posts Joined: Apr 2006 |
QUOTE(nick__123 @ May 11 2012, 02:36 PM) hi guys, im new here.... It's slower because it simply just is, initially the gap was even bigger.after searching thru the net, i found that the Vertex 3 is good and fast with my m14x... http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-...discussion.html but most users here recommend to go for Crucial M4.... but from the link below, the speed is slower... is it due to the firmware? http://www.overclock.net/t/1209763/m14x-crucial-m4-speeds i hope to get a 128GB SSD to optimize my m14x thx But with the 0009 firmware, Crucial has brought the M4's performance pretty close to Sandforce based SSDs. However, Sandforce based SSDs do have a detrimental impact on performance (again, I stress, only in benchmarks) over incompressible data. The Crucial M4 works just at its rated speed regardless the type of data being processed. Finally, although the latest firmwares for SF-2281 controllers has pretty much almost alienated the BSOD issues, there are still more users facing problems with SF-2281 based SSDs than there are on Marvell based SSDs. If you need to know more, do some more research on Google. As a final answer to your question, I still suggest getting the Crucial M4 despite being a little bit slower overall. |
|
|
May 11 2012, 04:58 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
355 posts Joined: Dec 2011 |
QUOTE(SSJBen @ May 11 2012, 04:14 PM) It's slower because it simply just is, initially the gap was even bigger. But with the 0009 firmware, Crucial has brought the M4's performance pretty close to Sandforce based SSDs. However, Sandforce based SSDs do have a detrimental impact on performance (again, I stress, only in benchmarks) over incompressible data. The Crucial M4 works just at its rated speed regardless the type of data being processed. Finally, although the latest firmwares for SF-2281 controllers has pretty much almost alienated the BSOD issues, there are still more users facing problems with SF-2281 based SSDs than there are on Marvell based SSDs. If you need to know more, do some more research on Google. As a final answer to your question, I still suggest getting the Crucial M4 despite being a little bit slower overall. |
|
|
May 11 2012, 07:15 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]()
Junior Member
404 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Melaka |
QUOTE(SSJBen @ May 11 2012, 04:14 PM) It's slower because it simply just is, initially the gap was even bigger. wow.... there are so much more i need to learn... thx bro But with the 0009 firmware, Crucial has brought the M4's performance pretty close to Sandforce based SSDs. However, Sandforce based SSDs do have a detrimental impact on performance (again, I stress, only in benchmarks) over incompressible data. The Crucial M4 works just at its rated speed regardless the type of data being processed. Finally, although the latest firmwares for SF-2281 controllers has pretty much almost alienated the BSOD issues, there are still more users facing problems with SF-2281 based SSDs than there are on Marvell based SSDs. If you need to know more, do some more research on Google. As a final answer to your question, I still suggest getting the Crucial M4 despite being a little bit slower overall. |
|
|
May 11 2012, 08:24 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,314 posts Joined: Oct 2009 From: Cheras, KL |
|
|
|
May 11 2012, 08:36 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,081 posts Joined: Nov 2005 |
|
|
|
May 11 2012, 09:08 PM
|
|
Elite
8,711 posts Joined: Nov 2007 From: Butterworth, PG / Machang, Kelantan |
My very 1st purchase at amazon.com
50% cheaper than usual price ![]() |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: | 0.0296sec
0.60
6 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 6th December 2025 - 10:40 PM |