jcX4ever Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 I was so excited about this F series Corsair since on paper and spec wise it should be faster than my OCZ Agility Indilinx. I planned to take off my OCZ Agility on my Desktop and switch this F60 Corsair and put the OCZ in my Laptop. I then installed Win7 on the F60 and it is very noticeable that it is slower than the OCZ Agility. I did enabled ACHI, the Windows Experience Index did improved but on benchmarks the OCZ still beats this F60. The F60 is performing half speed as it is suppose to be. Im very disappointed.... but I'm still hoping that I missed something on the setup. Pls help. PS, check attachment. Tnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjames Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 I do not think this is sandforce SF-1200 performance. you bought the new F60 SSD or the used F60 SSD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcX4ever Posted August 15, 2010 Author Share Posted August 15, 2010 I do not think this is sandforce SF-1200 performance. you bought the new F60 SSD or the used F60 SSD? I bought this band spanking new from Fry's part number CSSD-F60GB2-BRKT. The Specs on the box and on every website is 285MB/S read and 275MB/S write but Im getting half of this suposedly claimed speed; as you can see on the benchmark attached. BTW, I've used different benchmarks. My old O\C/Z agility (not the Agility 2) beats this crap in every aspect. I'm thinking of returning it, but I'm hoping I am just missing something here. *** It seems that the word "O\C/Z" is taboo here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted August 15, 2010 Share Posted August 15, 2010 Please do not go around the filter. This is covered in the rules which you were redirected to upon creating an account here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micha2k Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 HD Tune is not made to be used with SSDs. There are better benchmarks. Try AS SSD or CrystalDiskMark. If you want to verify the 275/285 MB/s use ATTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employee RAM GUY Posted August 17, 2010 Corsair Employee Share Posted August 17, 2010 Atto is the suggested application for testing the performance. Please use ATTO and post a screen shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcX4ever Posted August 24, 2010 Author Share Posted August 24, 2010 ATTO is the only utility we have found to be reliable for testing SSD speeds. Try ATTO and post a screenshot. Probably they tweaked ATTO to be bias. Why it is the only one that shows a high numbers for the F60 when most benchies dont agree with it? Sorry but I have 2 SSD with 2 different brands.. one is the F60 that is supposed to be way way faster on paper/documents.. I can really feel it is slower in day to day use. Not to mention, this F60 is in my desktop with 4x more hardware power than my laptop with the supposed to be slower SSD. I will post more pix soon. I have the same problem.. http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showthread.php?t=88844 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbeard Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Probably they tweaked ATTO to be bias. Why it is the only one that shows a high numbers for the F60 when most benchies dont agree with it? This is not true and I do not appreciate the implication. 1. It deals with how the tests are structured and how SSDs deal with the compression used in certain tests. There is no tweaking or cheating here. 2. There is no specific benchmark yet that has been made only for SSDs. They are all made for HDs. In some cases, this causes issues with correct benchmark results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcX4ever Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 same problem.. http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showthread.php?t=88844 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employee RAM GUY Posted August 25, 2010 Corsair Employee Share Posted August 25, 2010 Please re-read Yellowbeard's post sorry but the same answer would apply. ATTO is the only utility we have found to be reliable for testing SSD speeds. Try ATTO and post a screenshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wired Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Please stick to your own thread. Posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaddix Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Sandforce controllers compress data on the fly, if atto writes/reads easily compressible data then it will show very high bench scores. Perhaps hdtune writes completely random data that can't be compressed at all, this would work for a mechanical hdd, the indilix drives, or the cpu maker's drives, but not the sandforce. This doesn't represent a real workload either, performance of these sandforce drives cannot be ascertained with normal hdd benchmarks. I also highly doubt you can feel it is slower in everyday use. Just return it if you don't like it, mine has excellent performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergkamp Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 The problem with ATTO, you will never get that performance in real world usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbeard Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 The problem with ATTO, you will never get that performance in real world usage. Any benchmark is relative. And, the published performance numbers for the SandForce based drives were generated using ATTO. If you test any other drive using ATTO, the SandForce drive is much faster. No benchmark is going to be able to fully simulate all "real world" usage. And "real world" is a very vague term anyway. What's real world for some is not for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shogo Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 I get worse write performance with the Force 60 SSD-drive than i got with my regular 5400rpm-drive!!! How is that possible, i have tested a ******** V+ SSD-drive at work and when using CrystalDiskMark i got way over 200 MB/s on both Sequential Read and Write? Regular 5400rpm drive: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 74.209 MB/s Sequential Write : 69.431 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 30.103 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 34.262 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.320 MB/s [ 78.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.011 MB/s [ 246.9 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.854 MB/s [ 208.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.988 MB/s [ 241.1 IOPS] Test : 100 MB [C: 25.0% (29.1/116.4 GB)] (x5) Date : 2010/08/20 7:03:03 OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64) Corsair Force 60 SSD-drive ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 © 2007-2010 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [sATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s] Sequential Read : 199.412 MB/s Sequential Write : 56.573 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 187.898 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 66.810 MB/s Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 14.405 MB/s [ 3516.8 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 35.761 MB/s [ 8730.7 IOPS] Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 120.843 MB/s [ 29502.7 IOPS] Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 54.897 MB/s [ 13402.6 IOPS] Test : 100 MB [C: 52.4% (29.3/55.9 GB)] (x5) Date : 2010/08/28 9:47:17 OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbeard Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 Please test with ATTO and post a screenshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shogo Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 Here is the screenshot from Atto, it seems fine but how can the results in CrystalDiskMarks be soo bad :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shogo Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 With AS SSD i also get poor sequention write? The drive is in a ASUS UL30VT laptop. AS SSD Benchmark 1.5.3784.37609 ------------------------------ Name: Corsair CSSD-F60GB2 Firmware: 1.1 Controller: iaStor Offset: 1024 K - OK Size: 55,90 GB Date: 2010-08-28 08:32:05 ------------------------------ Sequential: ------------------------------ Read: 191,06 MB/s Write: 46,20 MB/s ------------------------------ 4K: ------------------------------ Read: 9,78 MB/s Write: 26,99 MB/s ------------------------------ 4K-64Threads: ------------------------------ Read: 86,42 MB/s Write: 62,25 MB/s ------------------------------ Access Times: ------------------------------ Read: 0,307 ms Write: 0,420 ms ------------------------------ Score: ------------------------------ Read: 115 Write: 94 Total: 264 ------------------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaddix Posted August 28, 2010 Share Posted August 28, 2010 here is mine, F120 http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2629723/ssdperf.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shogo Posted August 29, 2010 Share Posted August 29, 2010 Could it be right that the F120 has the double Seq write speed against the F60??? Im i doing something wrong, anyone with the F60, please post your benchmark result please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbeard Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Here is the screenshot from Atto, it seems fine but how can the results in CrystalDiskMarks be soo bad :confused: ATTO and Crystaldisk use different testing methods and the results of the 2 methods cannot be compared against each other. As noted on our product page, our specifications for the SandForce based drives are validated using ATTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcX4ever Posted September 10, 2010 Author Share Posted September 10, 2010 Problem solved. I'm now very satisfied! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employee RAM GUY Posted September 10, 2010 Corsair Employee Share Posted September 10, 2010 Great news thank you for the conformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruebarb Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 First post here, didn't see an answer to this, but thought it may be appropriate in an existing thread. Just got a f60, plugged it in as 2nd HDD, ran ATTO and got this? Are the advertised speeds only when it is the primary HD hosting the OS? There is nothing on the HD, figured I'd test it before cloning my WD raptor. I am running windows 7, although I cropped the pic with XP Any suggestions would be great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsair Employee RAM GUY Posted September 11, 2010 Corsair Employee Share Posted September 11, 2010 How did you format the drive? I would suggest you quick format it with 4K allocation and test it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.