CorForce3 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Today I just bought a 60GB Force 3 SSD with an advertised sustained read/write spec of 550/490. I did a fresh install of Win 7 Ultimate 64Bit with AHCI enabled in the bios before install. Once I booted into windows for the first time I installed the latest drivers for my mobo and then tested the SSD's performance via "AS SSD Performance" and "Crystaldiskmark", both gave similar #'s as the screenshot below shows. I know the 550/490 read/writes are when using SATA3, but I should be getting higher numbers non the less on my SATA2 ports. I tried different cables, updated to latest mobo bios, changed drive settings in bios settings, different ports on the mobo, but the best I can get is in the screenshot below. Does anyone have any ideas on what I can do here? Thanks in advance, http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/kentmocc/movedsatato6row.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Here is my score with my F120GB3. http://content.screencast.com/users/TheOne687/folders/Jing/media/84528bdc-1e1f-4e95-b8cc-e00481411f9a/2011-07-23_0141.png It is recommended by Corsair to use ATTO Benchmark to calculate your SSD's speed as that is what they used to measure the drives. 259MB/s Write 277MB/s Read http://content.screencast.com/users/TheOne687/folders/Jing/media/c82fd1f4-9d6c-4306-8ac9-9ac1966afc4a/2011-07-23_0148.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorForce3 Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 Thanks for the reply with the screenshots, that was very helpful! After some more research it seems our reads are inline with everyone else, but our writes are a bit low. Here is a screenshot from a review of the 120gb. http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/asssd3-300x298.png Weird thing is, after I messed around with my settings my writes could never go back into the 80mb range, they now cant go higher then 60mb and no matter what Ive done (replicating what Ive done before) cant get it to go back to 80mb writes. sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadedBlackSocks Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Are all of you guys using SATA2 or SATA3 ports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Me and CorForce3 are using SATAII. Also I believe that review was using the F120GB3 with SATAIII which may help explain the higher write, they are also using one of the defective drives with the 1.0 firmware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssdx3 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Did you do any windows tweaking? Try a different sata port or try a different cable. You might be limited to your p45 chipset. Write back cache enabled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadedBlackSocks Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Me and CorForce3 are using SATAII. Also I believe that review was using the F120GB3 with SATAIII which may help explain the higher write, they are also using one of the defective drives with the 1.0 firmware. Those numbers are right for SATA2 then. The issue I had was that I was getting SATA2 speeds on a SATA3 port. I don't know what happened but I guess my drive sorted itself out because I'm getting >450MB/s for Seq. R/W in ATTO. It's still not SATA3 rated speeds but a lot closer than the SATA2 speeds I was getting. Also keep in mind that AS SSD will yield lower scores because it uses a different benching technique. The only way you'll see rated speeds (or close to) is by using ATTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorForce3 Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 Me and CorForce3 are using SATAII. Also I believe that review was using the F120GB3 with SATAIII which may help explain the higher write, they are also using one of the defective drives with the 1.0 firmware. yeah, thats correct they are using a p67 chipset with SATA3 in that review, but 138MB/s is no where near the limit for Sata2. I know there is overhead, but it shouldnt be so drastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorForce3 Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 Did you do any windows tweaking? Try a different sata port or try a different cable. You might be limited to your p45 chipset. Write back cache enabled? yes, windows was tweaked... Drive indexing disabled. Prefetch disabled. Superfetch disabled Defrag disabled write back cache is enabled Ive tried different ports and different cables with no success so my problem is that initially when I did some benchmarks I was getting 80MB/s writes, now no matter what I do I cant get above 60MB/s. This is after a fresh Win7 Ulti 64bit install, mobo driver install, SP1 Install. I tried it at every step of the way and it was the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 yeah, thats correct they are using a p67 chipset with SATA3 in that review, but 138MB/s is no where near the limit for Sata2. I know there is overhead, but it shouldnt be so drastic. Keep in mind that AS SSD isn't meant to be an accurate benchmark of everyday use on SSD's, and that the score KitGuru recieved in their review was achieved with the drive running at its full speed. Try testing your drive with ATTO Benchmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorForce3 Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 Keep in mind that AS SSD isn't meant to be an accurate benchmark of everyday use on SSD's, and that the score KitGuru recieved in their review was achieved with the drive running at its full speed. Try testing your drive with ATTO Benchmark. yeah, I benchmarked with ATTO and it gave me the same 259MB write /277MB reads as you, but Im just perplexed that I cant get the same 80MB writes as I did before in my initial benchmarking with AS SSD, now I just get 60MB/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdewchurch Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I installed the sata3 60gb yesterday ASSSD benchmark is pants, on sata 6gb's AHCI ....the two "other" ssds i had blitzed this score. Why are the seq read writes so low? I got the full 350 read and 80 write with my "other" drives which was the stated speeds Surely this ssd should be showing somewhere near its rated seq speeds, not 200 and 80 and a paltry 16.50 4K read, and total score 370! :mad: "other" drives total read were for the 64gb 560 and the 128gb 664 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I installed the sata3 60gb yesterday ASSSD benchmark is pants, on sata 6gb's AHCI ....the two "other" ssds i had blitzed this score. Why are the seq read writes so low? I got the full 350 read and 80 write with my "other" drives which was the stated speeds Surely this ssd should be showing somewhere near its rated seq speeds, not 200 and 80 and a paltry 16.50 4K read, and total score 370! :mad: "other" drives total read were for the 64gb 560 and the 128gb 664 AS SSD uses incompressible data, Synchronous memory handles that better than Asynchronous, which is the primary difference between the Force 3 series and the Force GT series. Here is SSD Reviews comparison of the 2 drives with AS SSD. http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/corsair-force-series-gt-120gb-sata-3-ssd-review-as-ssd-benchmarks-and-anvil-storage-utility-beta/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorForce3 Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 I installed the sata3 60gb yesterday ASSSD benchmark is pants, on sata 6gb's AHCI ....the two "other" ssds i had blitzed this score. Why are the seq read writes so low? I got the full 350 read and 80 write with my "other" drives which was the stated speeds Surely this ssd should be showing somewhere near its rated seq speeds, not 200 and 80 and a paltry 16.50 4K read, and total score 370! :mad: "other" drives total read were for the 64gb 560 and the 128gb 664 Use the ATTO benchmark and see what you get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdewchurch Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 In atto this gets more then my other two drives which did get their stated speeds (which was less than this drive), surely this should be way higher in asssd? like 200 seq read and 80 write lol, This drive cost more than the ones Ive sold to get it and performs rubbish in asssd the others did not. they said on the tin 350 read 70 write and that's what they got, well 80 write in fact. As in my OP the total Asssd scores for my other drives left this standing. There's a hell of a difference, in 560, 664 and this drives 370. I want to know why it gets such low scores. Even if asssd is testing with the worst case senario it didn't affect my previous drives to the extent it does this one. Ive also had the system freeze 3 times since I installed drive yesterday, and strange things happening, like windows explorer stopping working.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdewchurch Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Ok lets try it this way here are the last benchmarks Ive just done, and will be the last. They are ASSSD in sata 3 and 6 gb/s, followed by the same in ATTO ASSSD results are virtually identical regardless of what sata the drive is on, ATTO as you would expect gets twice as much. What then is stopping the ASSSD benchmark getting twice as much in Sata6 GB/s opposed to 3GB/s? What is lacking in these drives ? Here's the crux, If ATTO didn't exist this Force Sata3 SSD would score as a sata2 SSD running at speeds up to 3gb/s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Ok lets try it this way here are the last benchmarks Ive just done, and will be the last. They are ASSSD in sata 3 and 6 gb/s, followed by the same in ATTO ASSSD results are virtually identical regardless of what sata the drive is on, ATTO as you would expect gets twice as much. What then is stopping the ASSSD benchmark getting twice as much in Sata6 GB/s opposed to 3GB/s? What is lacking in these drives ? As stated before the Force 3 uses asynchronous memory, and that AS SSD uses incompressible data. The Force 3 series is also supposed to be a more consumer friendly drive, providing a decent drive at a lower price, and as far as speed and price goes it does that very well, which is why so many review sites recommend it, but as far as actual drive stability it is clear that Corsair’s current line lacks that on a wide variety of setups. The Force GT on the other hand is supposed to be a higher end product which is why it cost more and uses synchronous memory which handles incompressible data much quicker. Here's the crux, If ATTO didn't exist this Force Sata3 SSD would score as a sata2 SSD running at speeds up to 3gb/s! If AS SSD didn't exist you would probably be happy with the performance of the drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdewchurch Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 What do I use to get the advertised Random Write 4K: 80k iops? or somewhere near there all the test iops here add up to nearl that lol, is that the 80k iops? Still getting random freeze ups too. So NO if asssd never existed i wouldnt be happy with this drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 What do I use to get the advertised Random Write 4K: 80k iops? or somewhere near there all the test iops here add up to nearl that lol, is that the 80k iops? Still getting random freeze ups too. So NO if asssd never existed i wouldnt be happy with this drive. I said you would be happy with the peformance not the stability, you could try disabling LPM (Link State Power Managment) in Power Options or trying some of the suggestions made here and on other forums by Tech Support working with drives using the SF-2281 controller. Force Series 3 Users Having Issues with a Replacement Drive READ HERE PLEASE The benchmarks used to test the drives performance are detailed in the blog post below, it was released before the drives and is written by "Yellowbeard". Corsair Force Series 3 SSDs are Now with Us Also note that for maximum performance Corsair recommends Intel's SATAIII as it is what they used and is slightly faster than AMD's SATAIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorForce3 Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 I just got a mobo that has SATA3 and ran the AS SSD and ATTO benches again. There is absolutely no difference in any of the #'s going from SATA2 to SATA3 for AS SSD. However in ATTO there was a difference. Now its 540Mb Read / 455Mb Write on SATA3 as apposed to SATA2 which was 277Mb Read / 259Mb Write Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I just got a mobo that has SATA3 and ran the AS SSD and ATTO benches again. There is absolutely no difference in any of the #'s going from SATA2 to SATA3 for AS SSD. However in ATTO there was a difference. Now its 540Mb Read / 455Mb Write on SATA3 as apposed to SATA2 which was 277Mb Read / 259Mb Write Did you Secure Erase the drive before you installed Windows on the new MB? Then your drive was topping out AS SSD at SATAII speeds, also keep in mind that Benchmarks add to the wear of a drive and shouldn't be run so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdewchurch Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I just got a mobo that has SATA3 and ran the AS SSD and ATTO benches again. There is absolutely no difference in any of the #'s going from SATA2 to SATA3 for AS SSD. However in ATTO there was a difference. Now its 540Mb Read / 455Mb Write on SATA3 as apposed to SATA2 which was 277Mb Read / 259Mb Write No you wont get a difference in ASSSD on sata 2 or 3, see my earlier posts (and the responses) Dont bother secure erasing either as has been suggested, it will make NO difference. Theres SOMETHING amiss with these drives with ASSSD and I do not think it's just because it writes incompressible data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOne687 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 No you wont get a difference in ASSSD on sata 2 or 3, see my earlier posts (and the responses) Dont bother secure erasing either as has been suggested, it will make NO difference. Theres SOMETHING amiss with these drives with ASSSD and I do not think it's just because it writes incompressible data. Secure Erasing is prefered before installing an Operating System to a SSD. A Force GT user posted some benchmarks, he was rather thorough. Keep in mind that the reason why he can maintain a higher Read is because of the NAND used on the GT. Hey guys!! Thought I'd just post some benchmarks for this BENCHMARKS: ATTO (SATA3) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/gaern88/Rig/Corsair_ForceGT1208.jpg CDM (SATA3) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/gaern88/Rig/Corsair_ForceGT1209.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/gaern88/Rig/Corsair_ForceGT12010.jpg Now; I know this pretty much defeats the purpose of getting a SATA 3 drive, but how exactly does the GT stack up on SATA 2? BENCHMAKRS (SATA2): ATTO (SATA2) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/gaern88/Rig/Corsair_ForceGT12011.jpg CDM (SATA2) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/gaern88/Rig/Corsair_ForceGT12012.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/gaern88/Rig/Corsair_ForceGT12013.jpg And there u go! Thanks for reading! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbeard Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 UPDATED FIRMWARE AVAILABLE VERSION 1.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisdewchurch Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Secure Erasing is prefered before installing an Operating System to a SSD. Yes, Iam aware of that it's that you were pointing to that being maybe why no difference on sata 2 and sata 3 in ASSSD results, my drive as you are aware is the same... Anyway, behold a new firmware, lets see...... :D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.