Poor SSD performance

Discussion in 'iMac' started by No Pain No Gain, Apr 13, 2013.

  1. No Pain No Gain macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    #1
    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.
     
  2. No Pain No Gain thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    #2
    Nothing? Don't say it's what you can squeeze from this SSD?
     
  3. Nuke61, Apr 13, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2013

    Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #3
    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.
     
  4. kaktus macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    #4
    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.
     
  5. No Pain No Gain thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    #5
    Indeed. I guess it's not too bad then. Boot time is under 15 seconds. Photoshop opens in under 2 seconds.
     
  6. HenryDJP macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    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. :)
     
  7. No Pain No Gain thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Giuly macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #8
    Not that you should use a SandForce-based drive in the first place.
     
  9. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #9
    What benchmark tool are you using? My Seagate 1TB 7200rpm drive gives me better results than that..
     
  10. No Pain No Gain thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    #10
    What is wrong with sandforce?

    ----------

    Blackmagic disk test and all others.
     
  11. Giuly, Apr 13, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2013

    Giuly macrumors 68040

    Giuly

    #11
  12. Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #12
    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.
     
  13. bobcan macrumors 6502a

    bobcan

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny but Cold.. Canada
    #13
    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:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1177020
     
  14. No Pain No Gain thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    #14
    I did and it's some times very hard to filter.

    ----------

    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.
     
  15. Nuke61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Location:
    Columbia, SC
    #15
    It's really nothing to worry about, as your boot time and Photoshop start time indicates.
     
  16. RoastingPig macrumors 68000

    RoastingPig

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal

Share This Page