Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poor intel 520 120GB performance windows vista64

Last response: in Storage
Share
March 10, 2012 12:29:16 PM

I'm using an asus motherboard am3 m4A88t-m/usb3 and 1055T with sata2 ports, so I'm expecting this to run at the lower rated speeds for sata2 (I couldn't find any sata 2 for the 520, so I'm looking at the intel 320 series to compare). the site I looked at shows

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

but I'm getting on the lines of the following

read[MB/s] Write [MB/s]
seq 240 170
512k 170 170
4k 20 30
4kqd32 20 17

All of these numbers seem acceptable since I'm running on sata 2 (I would have expected higher, but I'm fine with that) except for the 4kQD32. I can't help but think that vista is my problem. I'm going to install the windows 8 customer preview to see if this solves the problem, but I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. does anyone have any suggestions of what I can do to get my numbers up (and most importantly boot times down and game loading down.

What I'm most dissapointed in is boot time and game load time. It takes about 1 min to boot into windows (which didn't seem to be much of an improvement from my 1TB spinner) Games to seem to load slightly faster, but I can't say it's very noticable. I am running in AHCI for my sata config.
a c 128 å Intel
a c 119 G Storage
March 10, 2012 3:48:46 PM

Do you have the latest bios loaded on the motherboard? Are all of the updates for Vista current? You can try downloading the Intel toolbox and see if there is anything in there that can help.
March 10, 2012 4:20:47 PM

I haven't checked the bios in a while, but I've downloaded the intel toolbox and it did help, but not much. I'll update the bios to see, but I've only had the mobo for 2 months
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b å Intel
a c 351 G Storage
March 10, 2012 5:54:27 PM

First download AS SSD and install/open. Don't need to run the bench mark..
The driver should be msahci or AMDs equivalnt.
Check the the partition is aligned, not sure if vista does this.

As to the benchmarks, with the exception of Sequencial read/writes sata ii should not be much lower than sata III (Sequencials are the only matrix to saturate the SATA II interface.
The Intel 520 uses the SF22xx controller (The 510 used a marvel based controller). So if you run a Benchmark that uses compressed data you will get lower scores. For Example AS SSDs benchmark (uses Compresed data) for the Agility III so that it's performance is not much diff between sata II and Sata III ( ie sequencials do NOT saturate the sata II port.
Benchmarks for the Newer Sata III drives quoted by manuf are normally for (1) Benchmarks that uses data that is highly compressable (not real life) and (2) based on the Intel chipset ( iaSTor (intel's ahci driver) which is better optimized for SSDs than msahci.

For the comparison you are looking for there is one that shows/Compares sata III and Sata II performance for SATA III drives. The Intel 520 is to new, but you can look at the vertex III, or any of the SATA III Highend SSDs using the SF22xx controller. There is one but for got the link. it was either on anandteh or Tom's.

As mentioned a MB update may improve - (May - key word here, but worth a try).

Added, Probably not a good idea to repeately run bench marks.
And YES, your time to load the OS should be down around 15->20 Sec. (Don't count the Post time, just count from "loading operating system -> spinning ball stops)
March 11, 2012 12:17:47 PM

I updated the bios, and that did help a little. It did not give me the performance I was hoping for, so I installed the win8 customer preview. my boot times are still around 50 seconds, but my numbers look considerably better for the 4kqd32 (5x faster). Windows 8 boot times seem to be really slow still but i don't know if that is normal or not since I haven't installed the win 8 customer preview on another drive.

I'll update when I load a game tonight. also, if I install vista on this and leave the drive formated the way windows 8 thought it should be, will this take care of my slow 4kqd32 read/write speeds so I can continue to use my full version of vista (most importantly I won't have to buy a copy of win8 upon release since I only use my pc for gaming)?
March 13, 2012 11:45:32 AM

got it. I had to delete the drive altogether and allow windows 8 to repartition it to the proper block size so my partition went from 111.8(what vista partitioned it to) to 111.4(what windows 8 partitioned it to) also, it helped to install the ahci driver (like when you setup raid) when setting up windows. my windows 8 boot time is 18 seconds now. I should be able to install vista and have the same results, but I have not confirmed that now.
a b å Intel
a c 351 G Storage
March 13, 2012 2:24:40 PM

Not sure about Vista, but:
... Windows 7 creates a small 100 mb partition.
... Windows 8 creates a small 320 mb Partition.
Not sure How this "System" partition will effect a Vista Instal

For what it's worth, Loaded win 8 on my Agillity III 120 Gig SSD (Used the WORST SSD I had available). Win 8 Post + boot time was at, or under, 10 Sec - I5-2410M laptop.
March 14, 2012 10:26:59 AM

RetiredChief said:
Win 8 Post + boot time was at, or under, 10 Sec - I5-2410M laptop.


I'm assuming you have a sata 3 on your laptop, right? I only have sata 2 on my motherboard.
a b å Intel
a c 351 G Storage
March 14, 2012 11:11:18 AM

Correct, my laptop is a SB w/Sata III.
Since the random 4K read is much more important than Seq performance there is probably not a big difference in loading the OS and programs between a Sata III SSD on Sata III vs on a SATA II port. Most look at the High Seq performance, which would be limited by SATA II, But generally the 4 K random does not saturate a Sata II interface.
March 14, 2012 1:55:01 PM

so, you're saying that even tho i'm on sata 2, I should be loading windows 8 in around 10 seconds if everything is working correctly, right?
a b å Intel
a c 351 G Storage
March 14, 2012 3:03:48 PM

Not really, probably between 10 -> 15 Sec. There are ather factors that tend to make differnt computers post different times.

is your 18 sec from hitting the power on button, or for when you see the "Loading OS" to when you can click on a program. My approx 10 Sec was from Hitting the power on Button.

For comparision, My I5-2500k w/Samsung 830 (Very simular to my M4's) the time from Loading OS to click on program is about 15 sec, but if I included Post time it would be about 20->25 Sec.
March 16, 2012 10:40:22 AM

I just disconnected all of my other hard drives and put them on sata#5 & 6 (sata 1-4 seems to be independant of 5&6) and I put my SSD on sata1. I then installed windows 8 again without the other 2 drives plugged in, and I'm now getting a boot time of about 10 seconds. I wish I could get these results with windows vista, but it just doesn't seem to be in the cards. I'll upgrade to windows 8 when it comes out, but until then, I'll be running the customer preview.

I'm VERY happy about the performance of this drive now. The benchmarks don't reflect what was advertised, but at least now I see a noticable speed difference between this and a spinner.
a b å Intel
a c 351 G Storage
March 16, 2012 11:21:32 AM

So Far Not a lover of windows 8.
Initial eval - GREAD ipad emulator, For desktop - several issues need to be fixed.
Unless fixed, might consider Win 7 (look for just before lauch, Buy win 7 w/free upgrade to 8).
Installed on Laptop - Removed.

Read formums dealling with win 8.
March 16, 2012 12:29:59 PM

I'm not a huge fan of win 8 either, but all i do with my pc at home is play games. so, it does everything I want. it took me about 15 min to get used to where everything was, but after that, the only real complaint I have about it is having to sign in through my email. I'm hoping windows will have a win8 upgrade for $50 for a pre-release price like they did with win7, and I'll jump on it.

what are you suggesting me read concerning forums on win 8? ssd performance? frustrations? I'm all ears.
!