My new SSD seems having low write performance than my old SSD
HyperX 5k 120GB, QD32 also sucked and the old drive have better write performance than this new SSD


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

Just tried preview the order, can deliver to Singapore too
Not that im going to place the order unless im insane, cost $34 more than owikh84 for each drive too

40GB is barely enough for me, if you are using Windows 7 x64, 64bit windows installed size is larger than 32bit version 'cause it has SysWow64 (prolly 64bit version of System32 folder) and x86 version of "Programe Files", now my w7 64bit already using up 49GB on my ssd. (mainly cause i used worng cluster side) im correcting the cluster size back to 4K....

And always Set the SATA controller mode to AHCI, before install Windows 7 to your new SSD,
or RAID if you want to (will have difficult later if you want to update your SSD firmware, cause the firmware upgrading software only work with AHCI mode and AHCI driver).
Never use IDE emulation mode, it makes your SSD behave like normal harddisk, which will suffering performance loss(its the default option on mobo)

Read this: Still want to wait? the price will go back to 130++ iirc, if dont buy now, will regret later

---

Added on May 14, 2012, 11:34 pmYeah may be thats the reason, i got a folder that is full of high resolution scans, 14GB, if i moved this folder my total windows 7 partition size still as large as 35GB.
Prolly bout time to re-install OS lol

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: May 14 2012, 11:34 PM

Nope, itunes do have some good audio encoder and cddb, but i dont use itunes anymore
my windows 7 is almost 3 years old already, probably there are lot of junks inside since i changed mobo twice without re-installing windows

Can always check for review, Overclock3d and Storagereview review-ed this SSD iirc.
When in doubt, buy Crucial SSD

by default AS SSD and CrystaldiskMark write random data to your SSD to perform benchmark, its slower due to the data is incompressible(if im correct...)
If you want more accurate benchmark on AS SSD, click the "Tools" on the menu and run Compression-Benchmark.
For CrystalDiskMark, click the "File" on the menu > Test Data, All (0x00) or All (0xFF), both prolly same i think
The benchmarks numbers will be higher than "Default (Random)"
Its the same for ATTO bench.

as for the SATA 3GB/s cable vs 6GB/s cable, unless you are using cheapo cables, there is no difference between them in terms of performance
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/...a-difference-97

Yeah mv91xx is the Marvel SATA port, are suck
my M5A99X also got JMicron Sata port, SATA 3GB/s, the performance is much lower compare to AMD chipset with native SATA 6gb/s support.
Change mobo if you can, if your mobo dun have native Intel/AMD 6GB/s SATA port.

Got money buy SSD leh
mainstream Z77 should be enough and may solve your current slow ssd performance problem.

Same as mine, im using HyperX but all the readings are wired cause my write speed(426MB/s) is higher than read speed(380MB/s), and its no where close to 500MB/s
Although i updated the SSD firmware but i didnt bothered to benchmark it again

It wont i think, if you dont do a lot of write/erase on the SSD, it will be fine imho.

Dont worry bout BT first, if you are browsing internet and your internet cache is located on System Drive(SSD),
Your browser is the one doing a lot of writing/reading on Your SSD.(if you watch a lot of video/peektures)
3 or 5 year is a long period, by the time your SSD warranty ends, you already got a cheaper/faster/bigger SSD as main drive already

Reply to the bolded part:
Acronis true image, if you purchased Kingstone SSD upgrade kit, it bundle with this software.
which allow user to modify the partition size before cloning, very advanced software imho.
I've tried cloning 96GB <> 120GB SSD back and fort, without any problems.

The free version is WD version http://support.wdc.com/product/downloaddetail.asp?swid=119
Not sure if it does the same thing

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: May 24 2012, 06:00 PM

Can but only little, cause i stored most of my raw TIFF scans on SSD, most of them are over 50MB each, loading time is only a little bit faster cause bottleneck-ed by my CPU, 3.7GHz AMD thuban (some image viewer will resample at real time to fit the screen which use cpu resource, and its the resample is not multithreaded!111!!)
Only ATTO can tell the difference LOL
I bought the HyperX 120GB cause it priced same as my old SSDnow(old price almost same, 260++)

Possible Max sequential read/write speed for your SSD is 375MB/s for SATA 3GBits/s.
if im correct

---

Added on May 29, 2012, 12:24 amMostly will be 2 or 3 second longer if third party controller enabled, before the BIOS screen not a big deal though
btw Marvel controller sucks, you will get sub optimal result if using these controller instead of intel native sata port.

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: May 29 2012, 12:24 AM

Whats ur system full spec?
I think AMD chipset is sucked
My HyperX can only do read 21.6MB and write 73.31 MB, thats random data
0x00 fill is only faster a bit, n my write speed sometime is faster than read

And update your SATA/AHCI/RAID driver. may help to improve the performance.

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: Jun 5 2012, 11:27 PM

Do you mean 2 RAID0 Array? 2 x 2 HDD running in RAID 0 mode?
Answer is yes, it can, can run up to 4 RAID Arrays , 4 x 2 HDD/SSD
eg 3 x 2 HDD/SSD on SATA port 0 - 5 on native AMD/INTEL chipset,
but third party SATA controller sucks ,just avoid using it, or can connect to your bluray/dvd/eSATA since the performance is not important.

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: Jun 6 2012, 10:12 PM

the seek time, or may be random/access time will increase if more hdd were added to raid array iirc.
can try out yourself if you have spare hdds with same capacity
sequential read/write may be can beat SSD, but overall ssd is still faster.

depends on mobo iirc, my ex mobo 890fx ud7 third party chipset is raid capable iirc. duno bout Asus 990FX mobo
edit: yup jmicron cant do raid.

This post has been edited by 1024kbps: Jun 6 2012, 10:27 PM

Which SATA port you connected? Always use native intel SATA port, no third party SATA controller even they advertised can run at 6GB/s bla bla.
Update your mobo chipset driver, run msconfig to disable unused softwares at startup ect.

Either using third party controller as well, i think no error, the firmware updater will not see the SSD iirc,
Must use native Intel/AMD SATA port when updating firmware,
For AMD user, use the MSACHI driver instead of AMD's own SATA/AHCI driver.
Back up data first before updating firmware.