The Corsair User Forums  

Go Back   The Corsair User Forums > Corsair Product Discussion > Solid State Drives (SSD)

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 06-09-2011, 10:24 PM
r9ball r9ball is offline
Registered User
r9ball's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 12
POST ID # = 507037
r9ball Reputation: 10
Default

Yeah I didn't think about my SATA3 using the Marvell controller
I am using SATA 3 cable and AHCI.
The other brand is performing at spec or a little better so I think my system is fine. We will see with replacement.
I might also consider upgrading to newer AMD MB if needed.
Diari's benchmarks look pretty good!
Reply With Quote


  #17  
Old 06-10-2011, 12:13 AM
sequoia464 sequoia464 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
POST ID # = 507045
sequoia464 Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellowbeard View Post
I personally have not tested any PCI-e cards so, you'd need to consult some other source for that information. You should be able to find some product reviews online.

Also, we knew before we started all this that P67/H67/Z68 were the only MOBO chipsets that would be able to run the Force 3 drives up to spec. Therefore, we have not tested on AMD.

I have not read it all but I think this AnandTech review will shed some light on your situation.
Given the amount of people using AMD boards, shouldn't Corsair think about testing their drives with AMD. It is a small outlay for a board and a processor - maybe an hour or two of setup and nominal testing. Nothing thorough, but enough to get some actual insight.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have seen results posted on other forums from people using AMD 850 chipsets with the new Sandforce drives that rival the Intel scores.

Might want to take a look elsewhere or do some actual testing before you discount the AMD boards. They really are returning some excellent results - respectfully suggested.

Really appreciate your and Corsair's responsiveness on these forums by the way, regards.
Reply With Quote


  #18  
Old 06-10-2011, 12:17 AM
Yellowbeard's Avatar
Yellowbeard Yellowbeard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Atlanta,GA, USA.
Posts: 11,529
POST ID # = 507046
Yellowbeard Reputation: 46
Default

We don't neglect AMD at all. But, at this stage we're working the ONLY chipsets that have proven to max out the drives. If we test with chipsets known to bottleneck the drives, that would not be useful at all to us. I'm sure there will be some AMD testing coming along soon.
Reply With Quote


  #19  
Old 06-10-2011, 01:01 AM
Synbios's Avatar
Synbios Synbios is offline
Registered User
Synbios's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 1,157
POST ID # = 507051
Synbios Reputation: 10
Send a message via AIM to Synbios
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoia464 View Post
Given the amount of people using AMD boards, shouldn't Corsair think about testing their drives with AMD. It is a small outlay for a board and a processor - maybe an hour or two of setup and nominal testing. Nothing thorough, but enough to get some actual insight.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have seen results posted on other forums from people using AMD 850 chipsets with the new Sandforce drives that rival the Intel scores.

Might want to take a look elsewhere or do some actual testing before you discount the AMD boards. They really are returning some excellent results - respectfully suggested.

Really appreciate your and Corsair's responsiveness on these forums by the way, regards.
It's not a matter of testing. The AMD boards themselves don't have the same performance so even if Corsair tested their drives with them it's not really going to change anything.

With that being said the difference in performance is pretty small between the chipsets, this I will agree. What makes a bigger difference is the actual controller you're using. For the most part, the Intel controllers have better performance than Marvell, JMicron, and Silicon Image. It has nothing to do with brand biasing, but Intel is clearly the leader in performance.
__________________
Force drive not recognized in firmware update utility? Click here
Reply With Quote


  #20  
Old 06-10-2011, 01:16 AM
sequoia464 sequoia464 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
POST ID # = 507055
sequoia464 Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synbios View Post
It's not a matter of testing. The AMD boards themselves don't have the same performance so even if Corsair tested their drives with them it's not really going to change anything.

With that being said the difference in performance is pretty small between the chipsets, this I will agree. What makes a bigger difference is the actual controller you're using. For the most part, the Intel controllers have better performance than Marvell, JMicron, and Silicon Image. It has nothing to do with brand biasing, but Intel is clearly the leader in performance.
I absolutely understand that Intel generally gives better performance. What I am saying here is that when another company initially brought the new sandforce drives out, there were quite a few benchmarks posted on , mostly Intel, but also a few AMD boards in another forum. Those benchmarks show the AMD boards VERY close in performance to Intel in AS SSD marks as well as ATTO. If it wasn't a competitors site I would post a link.

The first page of the reviews has an Asus 850 board AS SSD score of 697, shortly after that is a post with a Asus P67 board - AS SSD score of 692.
The ATTO scores are within a heartbeat of one another also.

Nothing to do here with brand biasing either, but the results pretty much state the case. I was a bit supprised because all of my SATA II drives are markedly slower for me than what I see posted on Intel SATA II boards.

Last edited by sequoia464; 06-10-2011 at 01:20 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #21  
Old 06-10-2011, 03:32 AM
zilym zilym is offline
Registered User
zilym's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4
POST ID # = 507069
zilym Reputation: 10
Default

Attached are my AS SSD and ATTO benchmark scores running on my PC listed in my profile in AHCI mode using the latest AMD chipset 8.71 drivers. I used the 6Gbps SATA cable that came with my motherboard.

I'm using 32-bit Windows XP Media Center Edition. Maybe I need to upgrade to 64-bit Windows 7 to get the good numbers Diari posted? My mobo is using the same SB850 south bridge as Diari's mobo, so in theory I ought to be able to reach the same speed.
Attached Images
File Type: png atto-f3-120gb-amd-sb850.png (22.4 KB, 312 views)
File Type: png as-ssd-bench Corsair Force 3 6.9.2011 8-26-0.png (35.2 KB, 337 views)
Reply With Quote


  #22  
Old 06-19-2011, 10:22 PM
aggiebroz aggiebroz is offline
Registered User
aggiebroz's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9
POST ID # = 508545
aggiebroz Reputation: 10
Default

I have an update. I have narrowed the issue down to my motherboard and in particular the BIOS settings.

I have found that the poor performance happens when my sb850 is in RAID mode with the RAID 5 option disabled, ,which is how I had it set up with my old drives. Also I found that just switching to AHCI as was done at the beginning of this post does not restore performance. To get good performance I have to reset the board to default first then set it to either AHCI or RAID with RAID 5 enabled. I am not sure why RAID 5 enabled/disabled changes performance and why switching from disabled to enabled with out a reset to default does not restore performance.

In AHCI mode after setting to defaults I now get read speeds up to 500 MB/s on both drives (in a used state after a few windows reinstalls). I have not run any other tests yet. In a RAID 0 config I now get up to 760 MB/s instead of 500MB/s. So performance is still not as high as the Intel systems, but it is at least acceptable now. Oh, interestingly When in IDE mode I got 340 MB/s read.
Reply With Quote


  #23  
Old 06-20-2011, 12:17 AM
sequoia464 sequoia464 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
POST ID # = 508551
sequoia464 Reputation: 10
Default

I don't have any SATA III drives any longer but I do have three other pairs of SSD's in raid 0 - I enabled the raid5 just to see what would happen (didn't get as thorough as you going to default and back however) I had a 10% increase on the AS SSD scores for one set - the others remained about the same. The ATTO results tended to favor write increases at the expense of reads, but improvements with all three sets - nothing nearly as dramatic as yours however.

I have noticed that the bios settings for my 850 chipset have some quirks also - I had a set of (not corsair) SATA III drives - I had SATA III enabled initially, but had to disable then enable it for the SATA III to function. On my first run of ATTO the drives individually had reads that topped out around 244,000. After doing the disable/enable they were over the 300K mark.
Reply With Quote


  #24  
Old 06-20-2011, 06:51 PM
r9ball r9ball is offline
Registered User
r9ball's PC Specs
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 12
POST ID # = 508669
r9ball Reputation: 10
Default

Aggiebroz,
You did get up to 500MBs in AHCI?
Was that in a type of RAID or was that as stand alone drives?
I only have a single drive with AHCI and the SATA III.
My MB has RAID and can change BIOS settings but not sure if that would help since I am not RAIDing the drive...Gigabyte GA-770TA-UD3
Reply With Quote


  #25  
Old 06-20-2011, 10:16 PM
aggiebroz aggiebroz is offline
Registered User
aggiebroz's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9
POST ID # = 508715
aggiebroz Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
You did get up to 500MBs in AHCI?
Was that in a type of RAID or was that as stand alone drives?
I only have a single drive with AHCI and the SATA III.
My MB has RAID and can change BIOS settings but not sure if that would help since I am not RAIDing the drive...Gigabyte GA-770TA-UD3
Yes I saw up to 500 MB/s on each drive in AHCI mode and RAID mode with no raid array set up.

Also as said before, the sata 3 controller on your motherboard is not the same as mine. My controller is part of the AMD SB850 (which your board does not have) and your sata 3 controller is from marvel. So my settings will not be applicable to your system.
Reply With Quote


  #26  
Old 06-28-2011, 06:34 PM
aggiebroz aggiebroz is offline
Registered User
aggiebroz's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 9
POST ID # = 510206
aggiebroz Reputation: 10
Default

Another update to provide other users with general information.

I just received my replacement drives yesterday and they are working fine the same as my first set. Also since I did an advanced rma I have both sets for a day or so until I get the old ones off to UPS.

While I had all 4 drives I set up a raid 0 and also a raid 5 with all four of them. The raid 0 achieved 1.1 GB/s read and the raid 5 achieved 850 MB/s read. That is compared to my 500 for one drive and 760 for two. I did not have a chance to do any IOmeter tests.


Oh FYI for those complaining about the serial number mis-match, they don't match on the original drives either. I check all four of my drives (two pre-fix and two new) and the digital serial number is lower than the one on the sticker.
Reply With Quote


  #27  
Old 09-01-2011, 11:18 PM
cjrb007 cjrb007 is offline
Registered User
cjrb007's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3
POST ID # = 524847
cjrb007 Reputation: 10
Default

I have a similar problem with Force series 3 240Gb with Gigabyte 890fxa-ud5 mobo, I`m thinking in buy an asus croshair V board. Will It give me a better performance with this board?

AMD SB950 controller :
6 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s), red
Support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10
ASMedia® ASM1061 controller :
1 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s), red
1 x eSATA 6Gb/s port(s), red
Reply With Quote


  #28  
Old 09-01-2011, 11:38 PM
Yellowbeard's Avatar
Yellowbeard Yellowbeard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Atlanta,GA, USA.
Posts: 11,529
POST ID # = 524851
Yellowbeard Reputation: 46
Default

Probably not significantly better. AMD is doing better these days but they still are not the equal of the P67 and Z68 chipsets.
Reply With Quote


  #29  
Old 09-02-2011, 11:04 AM
philharmonik philharmonik is offline
Registered User
philharmonik's PC Specs
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 155
POST ID # = 524953
philharmonik Reputation: 10
Default

After hours and hours of troubleshooting, I think I finally got the drive stable. I hope I am not jinxing myself by posting this, but it has been over a week and the computer has been on 24/7 with absolutely no problems at all. I have even been stressing the system with multiple benchmarks. If you have an AMDSB850 chipset, dont give up! Check out my ATTO results! I would say this is VERY close to spec! Even though I am happy right now with the stability and results, I am little pissed to see that Yellowbeard says....."Also, we knew before we started all this that P67/H67/Z68 were the only MOBO chipsets that would be able to run the Force 3 drives up to spec. Therefore, we have not tested on AMD." Why wasnt this information put out to consumers????? Why no mention on sites like Newegg in the description????? If you dont recommend AMD for full performance, it should be noted in the product description on retailers websites!!

I would love to hear an explanation for that Yellowbeard!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg SSDResultsAMDSB850.JPG (78.8 KB, 223 views)
Reply With Quote


  #30  
Old 09-02-2011, 11:17 AM
sequoia464 sequoia464 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
POST ID # = 524959
sequoia464 Reputation: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philharmonik View Post
After hours and hours of troubleshooting, I think I finally got the drive stable. I hope I am not jinxing myself by posting this, but it has been over a week and the computer has been on 24/7 with absolutely no problems at all. I have even been stressing the system with multiple benchmarks. If you have an AMDSB850 chipset, dont give up! Check out my ATTO results! I would say this is VERY close to spec! Even though I am happy right now with the stability and results, I am little pissed to see that Yellowbeard says....."Also, we knew before we started all this that P67/H67/Z68 were the only MOBO chipsets that would be able to run the Force 3 drives up to spec. Therefore, we have not tested on AMD." Why wasnt this information put out to consumers????? Why no mention on sites like Newegg in the description????? If you dont recommend AMD for full performance, it should be noted in the product description on retailers websites!!

I would love to hear an explanation for that Yellowbeard!
From what I have read on these forums so far - Corsir has NOT actually tested these drives on an AMD platform. The reply I got when I asked about this issue was essentially that they might get around to it one day. As far as I'm concerned Corsairs input - not to offend anyone here - is based strictly on conjecture, as they really haven't done any testing yet themselves with AMD boards.

I have seen results posted elsewhere with the sandforce drives on newer AMD platforms that rival or match the Intel based boards. The results with AMD seem to be somewhat dependant on the entire chipset that is used, not just the 850 or 950 southbridge, but also the northbridge being used.
Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.