Jump to content
Corsair Community

Corsair X64 with firmware v2.x benchmarks


Recommended Posts

The drive is already half full:

 

 

Removed

 

My only complaint that it seems a bit slow in response time although it states a 0.1ms latency. I compare it to another SSD that i have. The other one was much faster in response but was slower in random and sustained speeds. I guess we can't have it all...

 

Don't get me wrong though, the X64 is a speed demon! ;)

 

PS: It works in AHCI mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Test it with the drive as a second drive and use another drive to boot the system.

 

When i say slow response i mean that Windows is not as speedy as with the previous SSD. I used a mechanical drive before the X64 and i just imaged the drive and copied it over to the X64. Sure it is faster than the mechanical but not as responsive as the previous SSD which makes me think there may be something wrong elsewhere. I have also aligned the drive.

 

To give you some examples,

 

Windows load time from logo to Desktop ready to use:

Mechanical drive: 35 seconds

Previous SSD: 12 seconds

X64: 20 seconds

 

Windows Mail live load times

Mechanical drive: 6 seconds

Previous SSD: 1 second

X64: 5 seconds

 

(i should mention here that with the previous SSD the response was instant. With the X64 it takes 5 seconds in which i monitor both CPU and HD activity and they are both close to 3%!!!. It is like the system is bored or something and then remembers to go ahead and open up the email. The system is lightning fast in general and all the benchmarks seem to be the same as before. It is that "instantness" [don't bother looking in the dictionary, lol] that has gone away now.)

 

Adobe Photoshop CS4 load times

Mechanical drive: 11 seconds

Previous SSD: 3 seconds

X64: 6 seconds

 

Left 4 dead 2 load times

Mechanical drive: 28 seconds

Previous SSD: 5 seconds

X64: 3 seconds

 

Mind you the previous SSD had TRIM and GC using the fw1916 from Indilinx, BUT its sustained speeds were much lower than the X64. So one won in latency, the other in sustained. Weird?

 

They all use exactly the same configuration as i have imaged the hard drive and just copy the image each time to each drive.

 

PS: The previous SSD broke soon after 2 months usage. Could it be that it was trying too hard, that is why it seemed faster, but died quickly in the process? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
Did you run the test that I suggested and I would suggest using Accronis to make and image of the drive (if you are using Windows) then use Parted magic to Wipe the drive under tools select Erase Disk and Secure Erase and then, install the drive on the system you will be using it as a second HDD and format it with the QUICK Option Only and 4K Allocation then test it with Atto again to be sure its running properly then delete the partition and image the drive back to its original image and you are done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tried what you said and reached up to the point where i was about to secure erase the SSD when this poped up:

 

I left it there. Any suggestions? Mind you i looked in the BIOS for a MBR protection but i could not find one.

 

I use Windows 7 Home Premium 64 as default OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I managed to do everything you said and i came to the following conclusion following my benchmarks:

 

 

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7416/hdtunepro350corsairx64o.jpg

 

 

 

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5105/attocorsairx64different.jpg

 

 

With a small offset (32KB) the "snappiness" that i complained about is back! The drive is now as quick as my previous SSD, BUT as you can see the write numbers have plummeted by about 40MB/s. In real life though i prefer the quick response to the write values.

 

With the default W7 1MB offset, although the drive is aligned, the write values are great, but the "snappiness" is missing, which makes the point of having an SSD moot to begin with.

 

I might experiment with intermediate values in the future (offset as 128KB or 256KB?) to get something in between, but for now i am very happy. The applications i said earlier (Live mail, Firefox, Photochop CS4, etc, are opening now fast!)

 

Any thoughts on this RAM GUY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees

You need to use a different place for the images like image shack. The one you have chosen is Spam ware laden. And not reliable. Your image links will be removed. Or you can just upload them to the forum.

If you formatted at 4K then try 32K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to use a different place for the images like image shack. The one you have chosen is Spam ware laden. And not reliable. Your image links will be removed. Or you can just upload them to the forum.

If you formatted at 4K then try 32K.

 

Sorry about the image host, i did not know. How do i upload to the forum?

 

I will try the 32K allocation and get back with more benchmarks. Should i leave the offset at 32KB as is now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees
If you format to a 4K allocation it will set the off set to 4K are you using something to set the drives? If so then wipe them with parted magic and use Windows 7 to format with either a 4k or 32 K allocation. Windows 7 will take care of the rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you format to a 4K allocation it will set the off set to 4K are you using something to set the drives? If so then wipe them with parted magic and use Windows 7 to format with either a 4k or 32 K allocation. Windows 7 will take care of the rest.

 

I think one of us is confused. I set the partition offset using DiskPart, then quick format the drive with the allocation size that i want. In the current instance my partition offset is 32,768B (set with diskpart) with a 4,096B allocation size (selected during quick format option).

 

Also, Windows 7 default partition offset is 1,024KB (which is what i used originally and the SSD felt slow, but with fast writes). But in all of my tests i have used a 4K allocation size during quick format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DO NOT do that, please just do exactly what I suggested after the wipe.

 

Hmm.. ok, i am a little confused now. In your instructions above you mentioned twice to secure erase then Quick format, but how can you format or even quick format without a partition? Is there an option in Parted Magic for that?

 

Can you please write more detailed instructions of how exactly you want me to perform the quick format?

 

Sorry for the long drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Corsair Employees

NO Just use Parted Magic to wipe the drive DO NOT use it to format the drive!

Then you will have to use a Windows 7 system running the drive a second drive then format the drive in Disk Manager and make sure Quick format is selected and set the Allocation to 4096 then test it with ATTO to be sure its running properly.

 

If you need to put an image on the drive just select the current drive and then run the image software to re-image it should be all you need to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO Just use Parted Magic to wipe the drive DO NOT use it to format the drive!

Then you will have to use a Windows 7 system running the drive a second drive then format the drive in Disk Manager and make sure Quick format is selected and set the Allocation to 4096 then test it with ATTO to be sure its running properly.

 

If you need to put an image on the drive just select the current drive and then run the image software to re-image it should be all you need to do.

 

That is what i did the first time (big performance numbers [write] but slower to respond). Hence i wrote on the benchmarks that it is W7 default offset, not aligned.

 

And that is why i started testing different offsets later using the Diskpart command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Windows 7 will align them properly and no reason to do it using Disk parted.

 

Ok, for a second time i did exactly like you said. The X64 works fine as a secondary drive giving the same performance numbers as when it is as primary with W7 on (used a WD 640GB drive with W7 as primary). No lag (apart from usual HD slow response) was detected.

 

So i imaged my W7 partition back to the X64 and guess what... same thing again, like i said in the first post. The benchmark numbers look alright (same as secondary drive, no better, no worse), but there is that "lag" again and it is very annoying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lag??? That is where I am not sure what you are talking about. I would suggest you call in and talk to our tech support 800-205-7657.

 

If you read my very first post i describe that "lag" feeling. I click on something (eg. Windows Live Mail) and instead of being instant or within a second or so, it takes a good 5-7 seconds to open up!

 

I took the time yesterday to play again with some different settings and here is what i found out:

 

By using W7 default installation partition and format the X64 it produces that "lag". By manual aligning the partition at 1MB offset and quick formating gives the exact same result (no surprises here as this is W7 default but just wanted to make sure). By using smaller values for the partition alignment (32KB, 64KB and 128KB tried so far), the lag disappears and the drive is fast, but the lower the alignment number (32KB is the smaller i have tried) the smaller the write speeds (which are not bad at all anyway, so no big deal).

When i tried an alignment of 512KB (midway between 32KB and default 1MB) the drive froze and disappeared from BIOS. The AHCI BIOS would freeze at the SSD detection and would not proceed until i disconnected the drive. I booted Parted Magic and secure erased the drive, which made it appear again. It seems that the SSD does not like big offset partitions (W7 default makes it slow and 512KB makes it unbootable).

I also found out that as soon as i partitioned the drive i could see the response by quick formating the drive, eg:

1) Create primary partition with 1MB offset, quick format=about 10 seconds to complete

2) 32KB offset, quick format=about 2 seconds

3) 512KB offset, quick format=about 10 seconds

4) Windows 7 partition and quick format=about 10 seconds

5) 1MB offset, quick format=about 10 seconds

6) 64KB offset, quick format=about 3 seconds

7) 128KB offset, quick format=about 3 seconds

 

It is obvious that with a big offset the drive performs slower than normal (no idea why)

 

I have also tried different allocation sizes, but they did not seem to vary the results by much and had nothing to do with the "lag". Only the partition offset seems to affect that response.

 

I have settled with a 128KB offset and 8,192B allocation size and the drive now is both fast and responsive and i am very happy with it. I don't know why this thing happens (defective drive or firmware, or something to do with Windows) but at least i have found a good setting and can't be bothered wasting any more time experimenting with other values.

 

Thank you for your time RAM GUY and this is probably not something that you come across every day, but i guess you see all sorts of different things happening, some times easy to solve and some times a mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...