Why is my ssd so bad? (Bench included)

I just benchmarked my 64GB Kingston SSD now v series and this is the result,

Reading isn't so bad I guess (meant to be 200mg) but writing is terrible! It's meant to be 100mg.

I'm using the 6 GB Sata Port on my Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 motherboard.

I enabled AHCI for the 6 GB Sata Port but left the PCH SATA Control Mode at IDE for my normal hard drives. (Is this right?) There was no Sata option here, just IDE or AHCI.

I also followed the first post here,

Any ideas for a SSD noob in trouble?
14 answers Last reply
More about bench included
  1. Also my SSD is the "Safely remove Hardware Eject Media" button is the system tray. Obviously it's not meant to be there. Just thought this might help pin pot my problem.
  2. I recommend testing using AS SSD and verify it is using msachi and 103424 K - OK is there in green. This will verify it is using the right drivers and is aligned properly.
  3. Ok so do I need to reformat and reinstall windows for the change to properly affact the SSD. Or is it something I can just change on the fly.
  4. I'd switch the port to a regular SATA II. The drive won't run any faster in a SATA III port, as it's a SATA II drive. The drivers for the SATA III might be at issue.

    Switch it all, change to ACHI, and see if it'll boot.
  5. mr_fruitbowl said:
    Also my SSD is the "Safely remove Hardware Eject Media" button is the system tray. Obviously it's not meant to be there. Just thought this might help pin pot my problem.
    It's there because SATA by default allows "hot swapping" of drives. This paper from Microsoft describes how to edit the Registry to tell Windows that the drive should be treated as a non-removable device.
  6. Ok so I didn't reinstall windows. I just changed to Sata II and change the PCH SATA Control Mode to AHCI (will this affact other normal Sata hard drives?).

    Here are the results,

    So does this mean it's a cheap drive? Or could it be a set up issue? Would a fresh install of windows now using the drive in Sata II help?
  7. Just ran the benchmark on my drive, its the same drive as yours except mine is 128gig. Hope this helps. Im running Win7.

  8. Thanks for that! I'm still pretty disappointed with the results though :( At least I know it's set up right anyway.
  9. Yeah, there is a reason the kingston v series is so cheap. The max read speed is 200MB/s.


    Now that you enabled AHCI, you're getting as much as you can expect out of that SSD. Its still much faster than any HDD, but just not a high end SSD.
  10. Might I suggest not running AS SSD too many times? It writes a very large amount of data to the drive to produce the result. It makes it more accurate, but more wearing on the drive. The original numbers look low, but the ones you posted second look fine, so I'd just start using the drive for what you bought it for instead of benchmarking it to death :)
  11. EXACTLY randomizer!

    Although not directly related to this thread, users need to quit fretting over SSD degradation (i.e. should I move the pagefile, cache, etc) and use the drive for what it is!

    I recently replied on a thread about a user with a 128GB SSD, whom wanted to know how to move "things" off the SSD to a HDD. I told them to quit worrying about it and use the drive! Wouldn't you want the faster access to these "things"?

    Yes, multiple writes and re-write do degrade the drive, but they are rated something like 20GB a day, for 5 years. In 5 years, we'll all need new drives anyway, to go with the newer systems.
  12. Those numbers (20GB/day for 5 years) are debatable, at least for 5k NAND.
  13. randomizer said:
    Those numbers (20GB/day for 5 years) are debatable, at least for 5k NAND.
    The numbers come from Intel based on the wear-leveling algorithms used in it's controller. The original X-25M drives were rated at 100GByte/day for 5 years, the G2 drives are rated at 20GByte/day for 5 years. We'll have to see what happens with the next generation...


    Now the original poster is using a Kingston drive (and it's not one of the rebranded Intels), so Intel's numbers probably don't directly apply. One of the reasons I chose Intel when I shopped for an SSD is that they were the only vendor who was actually quoting what their drive's durability was.
  14. Interesting. However it depends largely on the type of data as well as the controller. For example, a Sandforce controller compresses data to reduce writes, but already compressed data (or random data) will not be compressed easily. Contrast that with an Indillinx controller which will write things at a 1:1 ratio or worse. Obviously larger files have less issues with write amplification than small files as well. Anything under 512kB is going to waste a whole block.
Ask a new question

Read More

SSD SATA Storage