11/19/2023 0 Comments Crystal disk mark ssd![]() ![]() Benched at around 30 MB/s taking around an hour to copy. You are right, both those numbers are great compared to usb2 which is what I've had for the last few years. Similarly, you are limited by gigabit ethernet if you are trying to transfer data from one SSD to another. That's what matters.Īnd if you're sloshing data between a SSD and HDD you are limited by the read/write speed of the HDD anyway. FWIW, I get only ~25 MB/s random 4K reads on my random 4Ks on my not-so-new Crucial M4 256GB in CrystalDM, same ~25 MB/s with my Samsung 830 256GB, and the M4 and 830 are both a couple of orders of magnitude faster than a HDD at random 4Ks. Your 4k randoms are very good (30 MB/s via mobo SATA), so I wouldn't worry about it. But for most people Random 4K is what's important, because the difference between 300 MB/s sequential transfer and 400 MB/s or even 500 MB/s isn't that in real-life use. ![]() That's what I would expect given those numbers, anyway.Īre you sloshing tons of data around all the time from one SSD to another? Fine, then sequential matters, I guess. The BlacX SATA to USB converter may be a SATA-II internally. SATA to USB conversions (and vice versa) presumably involves overhead and thus would reduce performance compared to native SATA connection. I guess I'm going to be in the "ignore the benches" crowd for the most part. For some reason those benchmarks seem much more common on Macintosh forums lately. I actually haven't seen alot of x79 motherboards with USB3 speed tested. So is there some factor that explains why crystal disk is performing so low in these USB3 benches, while SiSoft is showing good numbers? Could it be some artifact with the USB3 on the x79 chipset? The only thing I have found which supports this theory is this x79 mobo review where the USB3 transfer speeds were really low, about what mine are: Around double the number CrystalDisk is giving me, and much more in line with what I expected out of USB3 and an SSD. Interestingly, that test gave me a read result of 280 MB/s. I ran it only using the GTX and Silverstone RVS02 enclosure. So I also ran the SiSoftware Physical Disk benchmark. ![]() Well its not quite as fast as my 830 for reads but beats in a few other categories (I forgot to take a screenshot of the 830 benchmark and I am trying to not over-benchmark that one as its my OS drive). So the drive itself is definitely performing great, about what I expect. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |