Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Slowwww SSD need help please

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 20, 2012 11:18:03 AM

Hi folks. I have an OZC agility SATA III 120GB SSD and the read and write speeds are slow. I have AHCI enabled in the BIOS. I did change this after the OS install but I made the nescessary registry edit to enable it. I update my motherboards BIOS to v1502 which is the latest. I downloaded all of the latest drivers from the ASUS website for the motherboard. I updated the firmware on the SSD. I enable caching in the device manager and my SiSoftware Sandra score is still only 172.995MB/s. Any thoughts on what I may have missed? I also made sure that my ssd is plugged into SATA port 1 which is the 6GB/s port on the motherboard.

More about : slowwww ssd

a b V Motherboard
April 20, 2012 12:43:12 PM

alrobichaud said:
Hi folks. I have an OZC agility SATA III 120GB SSD and the read and write speeds are slow. I have AHCI enabled in the BIOS. I did change this after the OS install but I made the nescessary registry edit to enable it. I update my motherboards BIOS to v1502 which is the latest. I downloaded all of the latest drivers from the ASUS website for the motherboard. I updated the firmware on the SSD. I enable caching in the device manager and my SiSoftware Sandra score is still only 172.995MB/s. Any thoughts on what I may have missed? I also made sure that my ssd is plugged into SATA port 1 which is the 6GB/s port on the motherboard.



Follow the guide (you don't have to disable pafefile though). Main thing is disabling superfetch (ready boost), hibernation and verifying Windows 7 Trim support is on.

...and do not turn Off Windows Write-Cache Buffer Flushing...



http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=...


How to enable TRIM Command in Windows 7 with a Solid State Drive

To enable or disable TRIM Command, you will need to open an Elevated Command Prompt window.

How To Open an Elevated Command Prompt window: Click on Start Orb > Type "CMD.exe" in Search box > Right click on "CMD" and select "Run as Administrator" (If you receive a prompt confirmation, click YES)

How to Enable TRIM Command

In the Elevated command Prompt windows, type the following:

fsutil behavior set disabledeletenotify 0

How to Disable TRIM Command

In the Elevated command Prompt windows, type the following:

fsutil behavior set disabledeletenotify 1

How do I know if TRIM is working in Windows 7?

In the Elevated command Prompt windows, type the following:

fsutil behavior query disabledeletenotify
Results explained below:
DisableDeleteNotify = 1 (Windows TRIM commands are disabled)
DisableDeleteNotify = 0 (Windows TRIM commands are enabled)
m
0
l
April 20, 2012 1:10:42 PM

Great! Thanks for the guide. I will give it a try when I get home from work. Also, I have not spent much time trying to figure it out but can you use sandra to just benchmark the ssd instead of running the entire benchmark?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b V Motherboard
April 20, 2012 1:19:57 PM

alrobichaud said:
Great! Thanks for the guide. I will give it a try when I get home from work. Also, I have not spent much time trying to figure it out but can you use sandra to just benchmark the ssd instead of running the entire benchmark?



Yes... and ATTO is phenominal~

http://www.attotech.com/software/files/drivers/bench32_...
m
0
l
a c 444 V Motherboard
a c 124 G Storage
April 20, 2012 6:05:04 PM

From your signature I know you have i7 990X , which is use the X58 MB.

X58 MB use a Marvell controller 88se9128 for the SATA III (6Gb/s) ports, which is slower than other controller such as SandForce SF-2281. That is why you are get low read rate.

Here is the review.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index. [...] &Itemid=38
m
0
l
April 20, 2012 6:22:11 PM

Interesting. I did not know this. Even with that in mind, I am still barely getting better speeds than some of the SATA 3GB/s drive benchmarks. Do you think the marvell controller is that slow?
m
0
l
a c 444 V Motherboard
a c 124 G Storage
April 20, 2012 6:57:53 PM

I don't test the benchmarks on my SSD, because i think benchmarks is the benchmark i don't care. In real world you PC will run fine. by the way I think other expert or master will answer this.

m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 20, 2012 7:12:35 PM

Quote:
Do you think the marvell controller is that slow?


No... just follow the guide and see what gains you net.

As for benchmarks; they're important as it lets you "see" that you're getting what you're paying for. Why buy a SSD that boasts 500mb R/W speeds and you only get half of that? Benchmarks lets one see if that performance is there. If nobody tested products manufacturers would put turds in boxes and claim it's a golden nugget... and nobody will know the wiser.

m
0
l
April 20, 2012 7:23:42 PM

This SSD advertises 525MB read and write and I am not getting anywhere close to that. cin19, that link is broken. I am home now so I think it is time to follow the guide.
m
0
l
a c 444 V Motherboard
a c 124 G Storage
April 20, 2012 7:38:46 PM

I copy this from Dereck47 in other post

"The Marvell controller on your motherboard has a maximum data bandwidth of PCIe x1 at 5Gb/s (500MB/s).

You will not get the maximum advertised speeds from any SATA 3 SSD you connect to the Marvell ports, but your performance will still be better than connecting the drive to one of the SATA 2 ports."

This is new link
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...
m
0
l
April 20, 2012 8:44:37 PM

cin19 said:
I copy this from Dereck47 in other post

"The Marvell controller on your motherboard has a maximum data bandwidth of PCIe x1 at 5Gb/s (500MB/s).

You will not get the maximum advertised speeds from any SATA 3 SSD you connect to the Marvell ports, but your performance will still be better than connecting the drive to one of the SATA 2 ports."

This is new link
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...



I do reallize that I am not going to get the advertised speeds on any drive. 177MB/s is really low compared to the advertised 525MB/s is all I am saying. So I just made all of those changes in the guide and my new score on Sandra is 157MB/s. So according to those guys in that review the intel ich10 sata controller is 28% faster than marvel. I think my issue is bigger than just being 28% slower but thank you for pointing that out. Maybe I need to see if I can get a pci-e sata III controller card that uses intel ich10.

m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 20, 2012 9:14:18 PM

alrobichaud said:
I do reallize that I am not going to get the advertised speeds on any drive. 177MB/s is really low compared to the advertised 525MB/s is all I am saying. So I just made all of those changes in the guide and my new score on Sandra is 157MB/s. So according to those guys in that review the intel ich10 sata controller is 28% faster than marvel. I think my issue is bigger than just being 28% slower but thank you for pointing that out. Maybe I need to see if I can get a pci-e sata III controller card that uses intel ich10.



What does ATTO tell ya?
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 99 G Storage
April 20, 2012 9:29:48 PM

Yeah, what does ATTO tell you?

And YES, the Marvell controllers are slow!

Run it and get over it. Too many benchmarks harm SSDs (too many write/re-write cycles).

BTW: The Agility III is the bottom end of OCZ line up = Asychronous NAND.

P.S.S. Read this: The SSD Review: Understanding SSD Advertised Speeds...

And here is a SSD Tweak Guide I follow: THe SSD Reveiw: THe SSD Optimization Guide. OCZ and THG have one too, but they are really close to the link.
m
0
l
April 20, 2012 10:09:37 PM

cin19 said:
From your signature I know you have i7 990X , which is use the X58 MB.

X58 MB use a Marvell controller 88se9128 for the SATA III (6Gb/s) ports, which is slower than other controller such as SandForce SF-2281. That is why you are get low read rate.

Here is the review.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index. [...] &Itemid=38


buddy..
no such a mother board with SF controller
u mean native intel sata 3 ...
m
0
l
April 20, 2012 10:22:36 PM

Follow those steps and i hope its help you as its helped me
1-AHCI is must from ur bios
2-place your drive at Gsata3_6 red one
3-disable Gsata3_8 and 9
4-disable super fetch
5-disable indexing

now u should see some improvement better than before

but still marvell9128 is poor ... marvell9182 is good as intel sata 3 tho as G1.Assassin G1.Sniper G1.Guerrilla GA-X58A-OC
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 20, 2012 10:47:58 PM

kovaxo said:
buddy..
no such a mother board with SF controller
u mean native intel sata 3 ...


You're wrong if you're talking about Marvell in general and SATA3~

On the X58 Asus Rampage III Extreme the Sata3 6Gb/s in contolled by the the Marvell 9128 controller ↓↓↓

Intel® ICH10R controller :
6 x SATA 3Gb/s port(s), gray
Support Raid 0, 1, 5, 10
JMicron® JMB363 controller :
1 x eSATA 3Gb/s port(s), green
1 x SATA 3Gb/s port(s), black
Marvell® PCIe 9128 controller : *2
2 x SATA 6Gb/s port(s), red


http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Socket_1366/Ramp...
m
0
l
April 20, 2012 11:05:03 PM

SF = SandForce i meant
Read what my comment was for .....

correction miss saw you motherboard ... i think i just guss'ed its gigabytes
m
0
l
April 21, 2012 12:15:33 PM

RussK1 said:
What does ATTO tell ya?






Very aggravating problem. The SSD is apparently sandforce 2281. Could it be that the marvel controller just does not like it? Anyone know of a pci-e sata III controller that uses sandforce? I am not going to do a major upgrade to fix this but I would like to gain a bit more performance and simply getting a pci-e sata III controller sounds like a good way to do this if one exists.
m
0
l
April 21, 2012 1:13:40 PM

uninstall the marvell driver and reboot then do the benchmark again u will see some different as the stander drive is better than the marvell ones

let me know what ATTO going to say after :) 



there is no such a sandForce controller on pci card ---- and pci-e x2 most of them marvell but late versions , cost like 60$ and more and they are good as INTEL sata 3

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

when u look for a card make sure its has x2 or x4 interface ....
m
0
l
April 21, 2012 2:19:05 PM

PCI-E TO SATA 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

here asking for pci-e sata 3 card NOT PCE-E SSD

bottom line = RAID CARD
m
0
l
April 21, 2012 2:35:28 PM

Samsung 830 64GB

Marvell Lastest DRIVER




STANDER MS DRIVER




SELF Experience
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 21, 2012 2:43:38 PM

Quote:
Add 4 SATA 6Gbps ports to a computer through a PCI Express x4 slot. The PEXSAT34 4-port PCI Express SATA 6Gbps Controller Card adds 4 internal SATA ports, along with a shared eSATA port to a desktop computer through a PCIe slot (x4), providing both an internal and external SATA 6Gbps connectivity solution from a single card. Compliant with SATA revision 3.0, this controller card provides up to 6Gbps of data bandwidth to utilize the speeds of high performance hard drives and Solid State Drives (SSD), along with Port Multiplier (PM) support on each port which allows for multiple SATA drives to be connected over a single cable.


http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=PCIe+sata+3+co...





m
0
l
April 21, 2012 3:19:17 PM

Tried to go with standard ms drivers but there is not rollback option. Where would I find those? I did uninstall my current drivers hoping it would automatically revert to the standard but system recovery reinstalled the drivers. I tried the updated drivers that you linked russwood1488 and the atto results look better but I ran hdtune again and this time I only hit an average of 180MB/s. What exactly can you deteremine from the atto results? Does it give an average? The results appear to be much better using atto vs hdtune.



m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 21, 2012 3:51:18 PM

alrobichaud said:
Tried to go with standard ms drivers but there is not rollback option. Where would I find those? I did uninstall my current drivers hoping it would automatically revert to the standard but system recovery reinstalled the drivers. I tried the updated drivers that you linked russwood1488 and the atto results look better but I ran hdtune again and this time I only hit an average of 180MB/s. What exactly can you deteremine from the atto results? Does it give an average? The results appear to be much better using atto vs hdtune.

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r637/alrobichaud/attonewdriver.jpg



I wouldn't worry about HDtune... I personnaly like ATTO. The shot you posted looks to be considerably better than previously... You would probably hit higher if you were on a better controller. Saying this, you may be at the limit to what the 88SE9128 can handle.

You could just run the system file test in Sandra and see if you get better scores now.

My scores:



m
0
l
April 21, 2012 6:00:39 PM

Your atto speeds are about 100MB faster than mine but at least I am running a bit faster now. Funny thing now is Sandra gives me an error saying that my hardware is not compatible when she starts to benchmark the SSD. Sometimes I just want to punch my computer.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 21, 2012 6:23:52 PM

alrobichaud said:
Your atto speeds are about 100MB faster than mine but at least I am running a bit faster now. Funny thing now is Sandra gives me an error saying that my hardware is not compatible when she starts to benchmark the SSD. Sometimes I just want to punch my computer.


Just got to remember, the SSD uses newer technology and the X58 chipset while still great, is older and you're going to encounter problems.

The 990X is still going for $1,000... sell it and the board and get yourself a 3930k and X79 board. Atleast that's what I'd do...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 99 G Storage
April 21, 2012 6:56:36 PM

Are you still running on the Marvell controller? WHY?!!?!!?!
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 21, 2012 7:13:12 PM

foscooter said:
Are you still running on the Marvell controller? WHY?!!?!!?!


On his board the SATA3 ports are controlled by Marvell and SATA2 by Intel. He has no choice...
m
0
l
April 21, 2012 8:45:13 PM

RussK1 said:
Just got to remember, the SSD uses newer technology and the X58 chipset while still great, is older and you're going to encounter problems.

The 990X is still going for $1,000... sell it and the board and get yourself a 3930k and X79 board. Atleast that's what I'd do...



That is one option for sure. Newegg sent me $40 in gift certificates when I complained about buying two 7970's less than a week before the price dropped so I am going to use it to buy this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

They are advertising up to 600MB/s. It can't be any worse than the craptacular controller in my motherboard and the gift cards are going to expire in 3 months so I need to spend them on something.

They do have a couple of intel based raid cards but they are too rich for my blood.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 21, 2012 9:09:11 PM

alrobichaud said:
That is one option for sure. Newegg sent me $40 in gift certificates when I complained about buying two 7970's less than a week before the price dropped so I am going to use it to buy this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

They are advertising up to 600MB/s. It can't be any worse than the craptacular controller in my motherboard and the gift cards are going to expire in 3 months so I need to spend them on something.

They do have a couple of intel based raid cards but they are too rich for my blood.



A few bucks more~

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Compliant with 5Gbps PCI Express 2.0

Fully compliant with Serial ATA specifications 2.6

Supports SATA III transfer rate of 6.0Gbps, 3.0Gbps 1.5Gbps

Supports ATA and ATAPI commands

Supports Native Command Queuing (NCQ)

Support AES-256

48 bits LBA can Break Capacity-Limit to Support HDD larger than 137GB

Hot-plug capability

Two Pin headers on board for LED connection

Support Port Multiplier Function - Both Command-Based Switching and Frame Information Structure (FIS) switching

Fully RoHS compliant

* HDD Controllers are capable to support all HDD sizes, but different OS may limited the HDD sizes that can be supported. For example, XP 32-bit supports only up to 2TB.
m
0
l
a c 444 V Motherboard
a c 124 G Storage
April 21, 2012 10:09:05 PM

Don't buy the Rocket 622, i think it still use the MARVELL controller. The link is for Rocket 620
http://support.freenas.org/ticket/1084?cversion=5&cnum_...

I can't find out the Rosewill.....

I think you need to have at least a PCIe x4 to get maximum advertised speeds of the SATA III SSD.

Or you can buy other SSD using the gift card to make the Raid 0 in the SATA2.
m
0
l
a c 444 V Motherboard
a c 124 G Storage
April 21, 2012 10:48:55 PM

The Rosewill' one also use the Marvell controller, when you enlarge the picture you can see the controller has the M on the top.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 523 G Storage
April 22, 2012 3:30:51 AM

cin19 said:
I think you need to have at least a PCIe x4 to get maximum advertised speeds of the SATA III SSD.


Correct. Any PCIe x1 card you buy will give you approximately the same performance as the onboard Marvell controller.

If the price of the card is under $200 and the card does not say PCIe x4 or x8 in the product description you should assume it's a x1. :) 
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 22, 2012 12:45:21 PM

alrobichaud said:
So would this one better?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

There are some good reviews and bad reviews. I am assuming that I can use it without a raid setup?


It's missing a few features and inparticular NCQ. The biggest question is it bootable? If you look at the feedback there are a lot of people having problems with this.

41% are one egg... I'd stay away.
m
0
l
April 22, 2012 2:50:16 PM

I find newegg reviews can be fairly useless semetimes. You only hear from the pissed off customers who can' get a product to work. I have two XFX mini display port to dvi-i active adapters from newegg and out of 30 reviews 27 are negative warning to not buy the product. It is tough to make a decistion based on that. Anyway, I am more concerened if you think it is missing some features. I would simply like to get a quality intel SATAIII raid controller but I am not willing to spend $300+ on one.
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 7:47:46 PM

I have been doing a lot of reading in the last couple of days to try to solve this problem. I have made all of the changes suggested in this thread. I am even using the default msahci driver which gives me the best result using ATTO as shown below.




What I do not get is why those results look pretty good yet the following results from hdtune and crystal disk mark are less than SATA 2 speeds





Just for grins I removed the drive from the sata 3 port and plugged it into the sata 2 port and ran hdtune and ATTO again. The hdtune results are pretty much the same but the ATTO results are quite a bit slower. This makes no sense. I have looked at plenty of reviews of SSD's that have used hdtune,crystal,sandra,atto and all of the results within the same benchmark review are about the same compared to each benchmark program used. All that I can determine so far is that my sata 3 controller has some issues. It's too bad that raid cards are so expensive. :( 


These are both plugged into sata 2 port


http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r637/alrobichaud/sa...
m
0
l
a c 444 V Motherboard
a c 124 G Storage
April 26, 2012 8:24:49 PM

Sorry, alrobichaud. Because the limitation such as SATAII or Marvell controller, you won't get the same numbers like other. Also don't run too much times of the benchmark program on SSD.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 523 G Storage
April 26, 2012 8:31:59 PM

alrobichaud said:
I am even using the default msahci driver which gives me the best result using ATTO as shown below. What I do not get is why those results look pretty good yet the following results from hdtune and crystal disk mark are less than SATA 2 speeds


Different benchmark software use different types of data to test Read/Write speeds.

ATTO uses highly compressible data to test Read/Write speeds.
AS-SSD, CrystalDiskMark, & HDTune use highly incompressible data to test Read/Write speeds.

Just for grins I removed the drive from the sata 3 port and plugged it into the sata 2 port and ran hdtune and ATTO again. The hdtune results are pretty much the same but the ATTO results are quite a bit slower. This makes no sense. said:
Just for grins I removed the drive from the sata 3 port and plugged it into the sata 2 port and ran hdtune and ATTO again. The hdtune results are pretty much the same but the ATTO results are quite a bit slower. This makes no sense.


The results do make sense.

SATA 2 speeds are from 151MB/s to 300MB/s. So you are getting SATA 2 speeds in HDTune when your drive is connected to the SATA 3 port and you continue to get SATA 2 speeds when your drive is connected to the SATA 2 port.

SATA 3 speeds are from 301MB/s to 600MB/s. You are getting SATA 3 speeds in ATTO when your drive is connected to the SATA 3 port and you get SATA 2 speeds when the drive is connected to the SATA 2 port.
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 8:33:00 PM

cin19 said:
Sorry, alrobichaud. Because the limitation such as SATAII or Marvell controller, you won't get the same numbers like other. Also don't run too much times of the benchmark program on SSD.



Umm...I do understand that SATA II is slow and Marvel controllers suck. Why would hdtune tell me I am getting an average of 180MB/s and ATTO shows me numbers that are as much as twice as high? I get that I am not going to get anywhere close to what OCZ advertises but my concern is that I am getting very different results from different benchmarks and it makes no difference if I am plugged into sata II or III ports, my speeds are the same. I am getting SATA II speeds while plugged into the SATA III port. Either I missed something or my sata III controller is faulty or my SSD is faulty. That is what I am trying to deteremine at this point but thank you for your insite into the problem.
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 8:35:21 PM

Dereck47 said:
Different benchmark software use different types of data to test Read/Write speeds.

ATTO uses highly compressible data to test Read/Write speeds.
AS-SSD, CrystalDiskMark, & HDTune use highly incompressible data to test Read/Write speeds.



The results do make sense.

SATA 2 speeds are from 151MB/s to 300MB/s. So you are getting SATA 2 speeds in HDTune when your drive is connected to the SATA 3 port and you continue to get SATA 2 speeds when your drive is connected to the SATA 2 port.

SATA 3 speeds are from 301MB/s to 600MB/s. You are getting SATA 3 speeds in ATTO when your drive is connected to the SATA 3 port and you get SATA 2 speeds when the drive is connected to the SATA 2 port.



Getting SATA II Speeds from the SATA III controller is a problem regardless of how crappy marvel is or am i nuts for thinking that?
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 523 G Storage
April 26, 2012 8:44:09 PM

alrobichaud said:
Why would hdtune tell me I am getting an average of 180MB/s and ATTO shows me numbers that are as much as twice as high?


The more a block of data can be compressed, the faster it can be written to the NAND chips on the SSD.

HTtune = Worst-case scenario
ATTO = Best-case scenario
m
0
l
April 26, 2012 8:51:24 PM

Dereck47 said:
The more a block of data can be compressed, the faster it can be written to the NAND chips on the SSD.

HTtune = Worst-case scenario
ATTO = Best-case scenario



That does not explain what my problem is with my sata II vs sata III port problem is but thanks for pointing that out.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 523 G Storage
April 26, 2012 9:31:05 PM

alrobichaud said:
That does not explain what my problem is with my sata II vs sata III port problem is but thanks for pointing that out.


I apologize for not being clear. The point I’m trying to make is that your drive will never Read/Write at SATA 3 speeds when using data that cannot be compressed, regardless of what type of port it’s connected to. Even if you upgrade your motherboard to a chipset that has native Intel 6Gb/s ports, your HDTune results will be faster but they will still be in the SATA 2 range.

OCZ advertised AS-SSD (which uses incompressible data) speeds for your drive are “up to” 195MB/s Read and 130MB/s Write.

So if you use AS-SSD, CrystalDiskMark, or HDTune to benchmark your SSD you will always get SATA 2 speed results.
m
0
l
April 27, 2012 10:30:28 AM

Interesting. So what kick started this thread for me was when I was comparing my SisoftSandra results with russwood1488. He has an intel 510 series 120GB SSD and he scored much higher on the storage test with an average read of 377MB/s. That is 200MB higher than me on the same test but he has a p67 motherboard which does have native intel 6GB/s ports. I can't see that much of a difference between a native intel SATA III controller vs marvel. I know I am not going to get the max advertised but I should be able to break the 200MB/s range at least.

http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f38/ocz-agility-3-120gb-s...











m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 27, 2012 11:37:00 AM

I don't think it's the drive... it's the older platform and the lack of native SATA3 which is causing latency. Try upping the PCIe bus and see the gains since the Marvell controller shares the bus... Also try different SATA cables...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
a c 353 G Storage
April 27, 2012 3:19:19 PM

^ Do NOT up your pci-e bus (Aprox 100 MHz) above 103 as instabilities are common. His problem is the MARVEL control and the Agillity III. Nothing wrong with the Agillity III - Read my comment on it.

It is a Combination of the SSD and the MB marvel controller.
In General Sata III SSDs perform Best on an Intel sata III Port using iaSTor as the driver.
That is why you will see most reviews based on that plateform. ATTO is used by manuf BECAUSE it gives the Highest Sequencial performance - So they can brag, Never mind that (A) For an OS + Program drive SEQUENCIAL performance is the LEAST important parameter and (B) it used highly compressable data which is NOT representative of OS +program drive usage.

First on the Agility III SSDs (and yes I have 2 128 Gig Agility III).
.. The Agillity III performs NO better on a Intel SATA III port than it does on a Intel SATA II port. This was documented in a review which I confirmed on on my system a i5-2500k Asrock Extreme 4 (It's overall score using AS SSD is mid 400's - A M4 and the Samsung 830 both get an overall score of over 700)
.. Based on this I would always run an Agillity III on the Sata II port and NOT on a older Marvel SATA III port.
.. Even on a Intel sata II port it is WAY faster than a HDD.

On Benchmarks.
.. ATTO is great for HDDs that have Both OS + Programs + USER FILES. Large files structures can take advantage of High sequencial performance. HOWEVER these large files structures will NEVER be found on small SSDs. It is NOT representative of what a User will see in day-to-day performance using a SSD as a OS + Program drive.
.. The best Benchmark to look at in reviews is PCMark vantage, both overall and score for applications that you most often use. Unfortunatly not a easily optained Benchmark program.
.. My preference for Home Benchmark is AS SSD. It uses Compressed data, while still not perfect, it does come closer to "real-Life day-to-day" performance.


Bottom Line - Move it over to the Intel Sata II port (forget the Hype), Install the Intel AHCI driver (iaSTor). and if You get in the Mid 400's (based on AS SSD) your are getting the most it can deliever.

SSDs do NOT like to have Benchmarks repeatably run - there performance will suffer, Must let trim and CG restore the drive.
If you follow my recommendation - Move it to the Intel SATA II port, I also recommend (a) Do a secure erease, B0 verify latest Firmware (I believe ir's 2.15), then re-install windows 7.

PS I have 2 128 gig agility IIIs, 2 Curcial M4s and 1 128 gig Samsung 830 + Older version SSDs: Intel G1, and G2, a Phoenix pro, an Torqx and a WD Blue SSD
m
0
l
April 27, 2012 6:15:09 PM

Thanks for all the great info people. Based on all of the info provided plus reviews that I have read if I can manage to hit 400MB/s with ATTO then that is about as fast as I am going to see with the onboard marvell controller. In part due to the single pci-e lane of the onboard sata III controller with a max 500MB/s plus the marvell controller itself. So the marvel 9182 controller is supposed to have two dedicated pci-e lanes which apparently makes it run better than the 9128 controller. The asus rampage extreme III black edition has the 9182 controller and it is supposed to work pretty well according to what I have read though it does trail behind the native intel driver but not by much. So what if I had a pci-e raid card that had two dedicated pci-e lanes? I would think this would be a definite improvement on the single lane controller on my board. I think at 180MB/s, I must have the crappiest read speed of any SATAIII SSD out there for any platform.

I think I am going to cross my fingers and give the rocketraid 640 a try. If it sucks then I will just send it back to newegg. It is currently half price down from $180 to $90. There are actually a number of reviews from reputable sites that are all positive. One review from tweaktown( I think that is where I read it) shows single SATA II SSD's hitting 200+MB/s using hdtune and 300+ with a single SATA III drive.
It is supposed to be bootable out of the box and have two controllers each with two dedicated pci-e lanes and work well with a single SSD. I will post my results after I get it. If it sucks you can politley say I told you :) 
m
0
l
!