SSD not reaching Advertised speeds

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

Hello, I'm here today wondering why my SSD isn't reaching the advertised speeds. I'm currently using a sata3 cable which supports up to 6gbps and still, even my HDD is faster.
Links:
SSD: http://www.amazon.com/Patriot-Torch-height-Transfer-Speeds/dp/B00RHWX1DC/ref=sr_1_2?&s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1439355597&sr=1-2&keywords=60gb+solid+state+drive&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin:6797516011,p_36:-4400

Sata 3 Cable: http://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-18-Inch-Cable-Locking-90-Degree/dp/B009GUXU52/ref=pd_bxgy_147_img_z

Youtube video showing my problem in detail including benchmakrs of both my SSD and HDD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAGK2HAvDx8

Ignore everything after 3mins and 3secs, it's just blank for some reason, just ignore it.

Additional Info:
System Specs
- NVIDIA GTX 960 4GB
- Intel Core i3 4370 CPU
- 8GB 1600MHz Memory
- 1TB 7200RPM HDD
- H81 Motherboard
- 430W Power Supply
- DVD-R/RW/CD-R/RW
- Microsoft Windows 8.1

Thanks in advance to everyone who replies!

nukemaster · Aug 14, 2015

Smaller SSDs tend to not perform as well as larger ones. Many driver makers reflect this with lower specs for such units.

I recommend trying CrystalDiskMark because it is used by more users and allows both compressible and incompressible(some SSDs only reach the rated speed on compressible data) data sets to be tested.

http://crystalmark.info/download/index-e.html

Also please post your full system specs.

I am still betting the access times on that SSD would make it kill a hard drive in any random operations.

EDIT, also you have WAY too many tags. This may make it hard for others to find this in the future. I tried to clear it up a bit.

USAFRet · Aug 14, 2015

How full is the drive?

And a simple screencap of your benchmark test is far more useful and user friendly than a video.

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

nukemaster :

USAFRet :

Updated it with system specs, also fixed the tags.

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

USAFRet :

It's brand new, just a little space gone from formatting, right now it says 55.77gb out of 60gb.

nukemaster · Aug 14, 2015

I had cleaned up the tags.

They are to help people fine the thread. So things like "reaching" "is" "my" are not great.

Things like "SSD" "SATA3" "Advertises speed" "Patriot Torch 60GB" "Performance" "benchmark" would be better in this case.

CDM(CrystalDiskMarks) that thing with 0 fill(File -> Test data). post a screen shot.

Again 60 gigabyte drives do not tend to be that fast. and SSDs tend to read faster than they write.

EDIT.

Other benchmarks like ATTO ASSSD could be used as well, you are just looking for an idea of general performance.

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

nukemaster :

reaching
is
moving
advertised
not
SSD
my
why
speeds
That is the order that tomshardware chose to arrange my tags, it's supposed to say why is my ssd not reading/moving at advertised speeds, which I think is pretty straightforward. If they wan't a benchmark I don't think this is the right place, niether if they're looking for my performance, I'll add the name of the ssd and Sata3 however.

Also, telling me that SSDs read faster than they write isn't helping me in this situation.
Other than that you're extremely helpful and I hope others can benefit from the tags.

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

nukemaster :

https://gyazo.com/d9520077c8e4f1b49397966c5efbad4d
I already know the performance of it, I'm asking why does it not reach the advertised speeds, you didn't click the video so I'll just send you a screenshot of the benchmarket I used.

https://gyazo.com/41b7599d7dbb7751ecc8cccdd4e23914

USAFRet · Aug 14, 2015

Please post a screencap of whatever benchmark tool you're using.

Also, which specific motherboard, and which specific port is it connected to.

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

USAFRet :

https://gyazo.com/41b7599d7dbb7751ecc8cccdd4e23914

My SSD is connected to the SATA 2 port and my motherboard is Gigabyte H8, that's as much as I know for the motherboard, sorry.

USAFRet · Aug 14, 2015

dashingdrew :

Well, without knowing the actual motherboard, it is hard to say.
"Gigabyte H81" is a wide range.

nukemaster · Aug 14, 2015

You have a high QD(EDIT, just noticed a seq read/write. Looks slower, but I have a feeling the drive is not using many memory chips), some drives are not great at that for instance this Kingston drive.

Look at this drives QD32 results.(this is the program I wanted you to run, but at least the other shows you ARE connected to a SATA III port)

While this drive holds up better(a bit bigger and more costly too).

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

nukemaster :

Oh, I downloaded the wrong program, sorry bud I was a bit confused haha.
I was just on a download screen with no info, read a bit and that's what I picked, I'll try to find the one you wanted me to download.

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

I downloaded both the installer and the portable version, they both look identical, how do I find the version you're using

dashingdrew · Aug 14, 2015

dashingdrew · Aug 15, 2015

I finally seem a gleam of hope, using the atto benchmarker that other people said this company used to benchmark their ssd I could see that on larger files, and only larger files, it seems to move faster... Would this help me for video recording/rendering?

SSD
https://gyazo.com/1b63dbbaa50655f20658362793e57ba8

HDD
https://gyazo.com/e9232edbbcfdd07da59be9bfdba452c6

nukemaster · Aug 15, 2015

Both the installer and portable do the same thing.

Outside of slower early transfers, It seems in line with what one would expect from a drive of its price range and size.

SSD controllers connect to multiple sections of NAND flash in parallel this is how they get the extra speed. Think of it as similar to RAID0 or how computers can have single dual triple or quad channel memory controllers.

So on a smaller drive they have less memory chips and this less speed.

The controller on that SSD can talk to 4 chips(or at least does in the the Torch). Now only 2 slots are used for the 120 gigabyte version. I have not seen if the 60 gigabyte uses 1 or 2 chips. Either way this is part of the reason for the performance difference.

Bottom line. It is a value SSD(I do not think it has cache memory either. This has an effect on small transfers to an extent), that will still outdo a hard drive in almost all day to day random read operations.

For reference this is a 3 year old SSD.

And to compare to the other benchmark I posted here is how a hard drive holds up.

Note how much hard drives drop off on non sequential reads/writes. With that drive head assembly having to be moved around, getting data from multiple locations is slow. This is why SSD's(even slow ones) are faster for random workloads.

Western Digital Black 2TB(One of the faster drives when released maybe 4-5 years ago)

The Original Ralph · Aug 15, 2015

TheSSDReview.com has a "SSD Optimization guide" that helped increase my benchmarks nearly 10%

http://www.thessdreview.com/ssd-guides/optimization-guides/the-ssd-optimization-guide-ultimate-windows-8-edition/2/

dashingdrew · Aug 15, 2015

nukemaster :

Both the installer and portable do the same thing.

Outside of slower early transfers, It seems in line with what one would expect from a drive of its price range and size.

SSD controllers connect to multiple sections of NAND flash in parallel this is how they get the extra speed. Think of it as similar to RAID0 or how computers can have single dual triple or quad channel memory controllers.

So on a smaller drive they have less memory chips and this less speed.

The controller on that SSD can talk to 4 chips(or at least does in the the Torch). Now only 2 slots are used for the 120 gigabyte version. I have not seen if the 60 gigabyte uses 1 or 2 chips. Either way this is part of the reason for the performance difference.

Bottom line. It is a value SSD(I do not think it has cache memory either. This has an effect on small transfers to an extent), that will still outdo a hard drive in almost all day to day random read operations.

For reference this is a 3 year old SSD.

And to compare to the other benchmark I posted here is how a hard drive holds up.

Note how much hard drives drop off on non sequential reads/writes. With that drive head assembly having to be moved around, getting data from multiple locations is slow. This is why SSD's(even slow ones) are faster for random workloads.

Western Digital Black 2TB(One of the faster drives when released maybe 4-5 years ago)

Okay I understand now, I will probably be returning the SSD, now do you think you can steer me in the right direction of another, preferably around $150 no more than $200. You would be a great help.

nukemaster · Aug 15, 2015

It is a good idea to check out reviews before getting a drive.

I have 3 crucial and 2 Kingston(the slow one I posted). For me they all get the job done and are still better than a hard drive for what I got them for. I just do not own enough drives to be the best at recommending.

I would look for larger drives for sure because not using all the channels on a controller will not lead to max speed.

Also know that some SSD's(Sandforce based units) use compression, this means that compressible data will be faster.

What exactly are you using the drive for anyway?

SSD not reaching Advertised speeds

Reputable

Titan

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Titan

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Titan

Distinguished

Reputable

Titan

Share this page