Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Poor SSD performance

N

No Pain No Gain

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 21, 2013
29
0
Hi,

I just upgraded my mid 2011 iMac with an SSD (Kingston V+200 120 GB) and i'm only getting write 130 MB/s and read 160 MB/s. Drive specs are seq red/write at around 500 MB/s.

I installed SSD in place of main HDD, not in the extra sata port behind ODD.

System profiler shows that SSD is connected to a 6 Gbps port and negotiated link speed is also 6 Gbps.

There should be people with these kingston drives here.


Thanks for any help.
 
No Pain No Gain said:
Nothing? Don't say it's what you can squeeze from this SSD?
Click to expand...

The 500GB/sec is for compressible data. What you're getting, IF it's the result for incompressible data, is not too far off of what this review got.

I have a Fusion drive, a Samsung 840 Pro in a USB 3.0 enclosure, an 840 Pro in a Thunderbolt enclosure, and a OWC SSD in a FireWire 800 enclosure. Frankly, there isn't a lot of difference between any of them, even the FireWire drive except when loading very large files like RAW camera files.
 
Last edited:
I don`t know if it helps, but try a PRAM reset.
google how to to this. I did this after I changed from HDD to SSD.
 
No Pain No Gain said:
Indeed. I guess it's not too bad then. Boot time is under 15 seconds. Photoshop opens in under 2 seconds.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I saw your last post before I responded. I was going to say that I don't know why people focus so much on specs rather than performance because it really doesn't matter what the numbers say if the performance is there. Now I see that your boot time is 15 seconds and Photoshop runs fast so you're looking good here. I have a 27" i7 iMac with a 7200RPM drive. Boot time being 40+ seconds. Wish I was getting your 15 seconds. :)
 
HenryDJP said:
I'm glad I saw your last post before I responded. I was going to say that I don't know why people focus so much on specs rather than performance because it really doesn't matter what the numbers say if the performance is there. Now I see that your boot time is 15 seconds and Photoshop runs fast so you're looking good here. I have a 27" i7 iMac with a 7200RPM drive. Boot time being 40+ seconds. Wish I was getting your 15 seconds. :)
Click to expand...

Maybe i got caught up too much in all the numbers, but i wish SSD some makers stopped lying on the spec sheets where they print those read/write numbers in huge letters and then add * so small you need a loupe to read. Turns out those speeds are only possible in magical conditions. WTF seriously.
 
No Pain No Gain said:
Hi,

I just upgraded my mid 2011 iMac with an SSD (Kingston V+200 120 GB) and i'm only getting write 130 MB/s and read 160 MB/s. Drive specs are seq red/write at around 500 MB/s.

I installed SSD in place of main HDD, not in the extra sata port behind ODD.

System profiler shows that SSD is connected to a 6 Gbps port and negotiated link speed is also 6 Gbps.

There should be people with these kingston drives here.


Thanks for any help.
Click to expand...

What benchmark tool are you using? My Seagate 1TB 7200rpm drive gives me better results than that..
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
As Giuly says, this thread.
For more details, Sandforce controllers get most of their speed results by compression of data. If most of the data that you're going to transfer is compressible, that's great, and there's nothing wrong with using a Sandforce based SSD. However, if you're planning on transferring lots of pictures, video, or music files they are generally not very compressible.

In my case, my pictures, video and music files are on one of my NAS boxes, so I don't think it wouldn't have mattered much if I went Sandforce or not. The reason I picked the 840 Pro isn't because it doesn't have Sandforce, it's because it's generally among the fastest SSDs at any task, and it's also among the lowest power consumers. Since they're being used in external drives, power consumption was also important to me.
 
Hmmmm.. Did you read ANY of the 'work' done..??

With all due respect, there have been a LOT of post in this Forum, from actual users of many SSDs, and extensive tests and recommendations on which drives work well, and some that do not.. and should you NOT choose to Read and USE that 'Free to You' experience then so be it.. Sandforce controllers have never been given much favor accordingly..

I did, got a 'reasonably quick' Crucial M4, and am very happy with it.. Nothing wrong with any others, but I surely appreciated the Work Put In by people such as 'Hellhammer' on here!! :cool:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1177020/
 
bobcan said:
With all due respect, there have been a LOT of post in this Forum, from actual users of many SSDs, and extensive tests and recommendations on which drives work well, and some that do not.. and should you NOT choose to Read and USE that 'Free to You' experience then so be it.. Sandforce controllers have never been given much favor accordingly..

I did, got a 'reasonably quick' Crucial M4, and am very happy with it.. Nothing wrong with any others, but I surely appreciated the Work Put In by people such as 'Hellhammer' on here!! :cool:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1177020/
Click to expand...

I did and it's some times very hard to filter.

----------
Giuly said:
Exhibit A: This thread.

If you're going for an SSD, Samsung 840/840 Pro, SanDisk Ultra Plus, Crucial m4/M500, Plextor M5 Pro or the OCZ Vector are what you should be looking for - or any other SSD that isn't not SandForce or Phison-based.
Click to expand...

Samsung 840 120 GB would be just as slow. To get a faster one i'd have to buy 256 GB version which is a bit too expensive for me.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back