Very Slow SSD Speeds: Corsair Force GT

macfan74318

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 9, 2011
73
0
Hello,

I just installed my Corsair Force GT (60 GB) drive and the speeds are horrible. I am getting 88 write and 330 read which is much slower than the advertised speed. Any advice? Also TRIM is enabled on this drive.

Thanks,
Macfan
 

Satnam1989

macrumors 65816
Nov 16, 2011
1,200
0
Illinois
Hello,

I just installed my Corsair Force GT (60 GB) drive and the speeds are horrible. I am getting 88 write and 330 read which is much slower than the advertised speed. Any advice? Also TRIM is enabled on this drive.

Thanks,
Macfan
Did u enable trim? or is it enabled on its own? I got a Corsair Force Series 3 180GB.....not the GT but its a SATAIII I'm only getting read/write of 189/180.....far below 550/520ish advertised....i used blackmagic app from Mac App Store to test.....I don't have any extra settings enabled like file vault 2 or anything, but its what it is...
 

thundersteele

macrumors 68030
Oct 19, 2011
2,984
7
Switzerland
It's not so great if the manufacturer promises 550 MB/s read and probably 300-400 MB/s write speeds.

My sata II apple ssd has about 180-190 write and 210 read, but I just ran the benchmark once or twice.
 

jlc1978

macrumors 68030
Aug 14, 2009
2,682
1,034
It's not so great if the manufacturer promises 550 MB/s read and probably 300-400 MB/s write speeds.

My sata II apple ssd has about 180-190 write and 210 read, but I just ran the benchmark once or twice.
Those are probably burst speeds and you're test is giving you sustained speeds which will be much lower typically.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,386
62
I assume you are testing with compressed data. Force GT is sandforce thus it won't do as well with incompressible data such as random data.

When I compare it to anandtech data of ASSD benches it looks to be right.
Write perfromance is 160/170 on the 120GB version. Half the space usually means also half the writing speed.
Read speed sounds reasonable too.
What many people don't seem to understand is that for good performance 120GB is the minimum. The smaller the process the less nand chips and the higher you need to go with capacity if you want to get all the benefits of an 8-10 channel interleaved controller.
256GB still performs much better than 120GB. Going up to 512 is not really necessary. 60GB still offers good enough read speeds but for writing you'd be better off with an HDD at least sequentially.
120GB doubles write performance and gets you full speed reads 256GB would increase write performance again but not as much as 120GB already populates all channels afaik, 256GB just interleaves request and can achieve some more performance through that.
Sandforce drive manufactures cheat with the specifications as they can reach those top speeds but only with very well compressible data. Fortunately much system data is compressible for a system drive it isn't that bad of a choice.

HellDriveUK doesn't seem to know what he is talking about. HDDs usually are qually fast in writing and reading and do so sequentially upto 110MB/s current gen 2.5". And normal SSD aren't that slow either.

PS: Compare drive speeds here.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/402?vs=371
There is only the Force GT 120GB in the database but you can just compare the Agility 3 which is there in many sizes to see what size difference does to performance in each benchmarks.
 

altecXP

macrumors 65816
Aug 3, 2009
1,115
1
If anyone is interested I have a 120GB Force 3 and a 240GB Hyper X that I might be getting rid of shortly now that I moved to an Air.

If you are interested just PM me.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,386
62
No it is not but it is not as fast a you thought. Mostly in rar extracting situations that matter but in most other cases (starting apps, loading data ..) the read speeds matter and they are fast enough. You wouldn't feel the difference to 500MB/s in responsiveness.
Also with system data it is actually faster in reality than what this incompressible bench makes it look like.
Also don't forget than random speeds are still good. This is where HDDs really suck. With 0.5 to 1.5 MB/s in read/write random data and your SSD probably still yields some 50MB/s random read and probably much more than 80MB/s random write as those are quite often compressible.
Also the latency of 16ms form HDDs is now some 0.05 ms. Which is quite a lot faster.

It sucks if you often extract rars, traballs and stuff. If you often write big files to the drive that are compressed like movies, mp3, jpeg. In that case you should have spent the money for a bigger drive and possible one that isn't Sandforce. More importantly a bigger drive though.

Just for reading and as a system drive it will be more than good enough with those speeds.
It is still much faster than the mSATA Intel 310 SSDs which they intend to use for the SRT feature in Ivy Bridge.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.