64GB Samsung 830 Slow as Heck!

[robvas]

I have a 2010 MacBook Pro 13"
I installed a Samsung 64GB 830 SSD I had laying around
Not the fastest or biggest drive but it's faster than the 320GB HD...or so I thought. It's faster but it's not very fast. 90MB/s write and 220MB/s read
Trim is enabled. This drive should be faster than that according to the old benchmarks I looked up.

Anything I can check out? I'm going to replace it with a 256GB drive once I find one on sale so no big deal, really.

 

[Smeaton1724]

How full is it and is the mac indexing? Granted a 64GB won't take long to index but I used to find only having say 10% free on the drive the mac would slow to a crawl.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I have a 2010 MacBook Pro 13"
I installed a Samsung 64GB 830 SSD I had laying around
Not the fastest or biggest drive but it's faster than the 320GB HD...or so I thought. It's faster but it's not very fast. 90MB/s write and 220MB/s read
Trim is enabled. This drive should be faster than that according to the old benchmarks I looked up.

Anything I can check out? I'm going to replace it with a 256GB drive once I find one on sale so no big deal, really.

That’s about right for a small used old ssd if you ask me, sequential speeds are not the be all and end all of ssd performance anyway.

 

[jerryk]

You are going as fast as you can with the device. SATA 2 interface. Theoretical Max is around 300 MB/sec. Reality is around 200 MB/sec. But still better than a 50-60 MB/sec hard drive.

2011 and 2012 MBPs have Sata 3 and do upwards of 500 MB/sec.

 

[ZapNZs]

[Disclaimer: I am far from an expert in this field.]

IMHO, for many Users, the random performance has a greater effect on usability than sequential (and the random write performance of that drive is extremely low).

Your benchmarks are not far off from where it should be, and the remaining discrepancy could be explained by the OS occupying quite a bit of the free space, IMO. The read speeds are a bit slower than expected, but capped by SATAII (otherwise it would be closer to 500 MB/s) and the write speeds are capped by the smaller 64 GB size, especially considering SSDs from this generation suffered considerable sequential write tolls with the smaller capacities (the next generation 840 also had much slower sequential and random write speeds on smaller sized drives, the later 840 Evo had much improved sequential write speeds on smaller sized drives but still much slower random writes, and the modern 850 Evo and 850 Pro had both sequential write speeds and random write speeds on the smaller sizes that essentially mirrored larger sizes [IIRC Samsung has since discontinued the 120 GB 850's of both flavors]).

Have you checked the wear levels on the drive?

 

[robvas]

There's only about 10GB taken and spotlight has long stopped indexing. According to other benchmarks the drive is capable of 120-130MBs

I know the NVIDIA chipset in these limits the speed of the drives and has quirks. I remember using an Agility that would lock itself at SATA 1

 

[Audit13]

Possibly defective sata hard drive cable?

 

[Fishrrman]

A 2010 MBPro has only SATA-2 (slower than SATA-3).

I just checked my own 2010 MBPro 13" (which has an Intel 530 series SSD in it).
I get reads of 256mbps and writes of 159mbps. I reckon that's about "the upper limits" of what one is going to get from a 2010-vintage MBPro.

Having said that, the speeds that you got weren't that "far off", considering the drive is smaller (often, smaller-sized drives have slower write speeds). Your read speeds are within "shoutin' distance" of mine.

So...
- You WILL get modestly faster speeds if you install a newer SSD
but
- You almost certainly WON'T get speeds faster than those I posted above, due to the limitations of the SATA-2 bus (regardless of which drive you use)...

So...
- Don't spend extra for "the fastest" SSD, because it will be of no benefit to you.

I'd HIGHLY RECOMMEND a "Sandisk Plus" SSD. Low cost, reliable, and fast enough for your needs.