Why do my Samsung 830 SSD Speeds Suck?

jimbomoss

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 30, 2004
12
0
Late 2007 Early 2008 MBPro. SATA-1 (that might be the reason). Trim enabled. Out of box firmware.

Screen Shot attached...
 

Attachments


Nov 28, 2010
22,668
27
located
S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) is the reason.
You can use the following applications to benchmark the speed of your SSD, to see, if S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) and not the application is the culprit:

And you can look into System Profiler (System Report on Lion) > Hardware > Serial-ATA, to see, that you have an S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) interface.
 

Blue604

macrumors regular
Mar 6, 2012
163
0
I have macbook pro 13" 2009, sata 2,

If i go with the same drive, what would my bench mark be? I am using 7200rpm now, and they are around 80s to 90s.
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,668
27
located
I have macbook pro 13" 2009, sata 2,

If i go with the same drive, what would my bench mark be? I am using 7200rpm now, and they are around 80s to 90s.
190 to 230 MB/s, but the random access time is the real killer of slow HDDs.
While one does not write big chunks of data onto the same HDD the data is from (like duplicating a file GBs in size), having that fast random access time is even noticeable on an S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) interface.
A good example might be boot times and application startup times, where data from various locations have to be read, or reading from cache (which happens in the background).
 

basesloaded190

macrumors 68030
Oct 16, 2007
2,691
5
Wisconsin
Perhaps suggest an alternative that he could use if his original drive can be returned....
Which you just did? :rolleyes:

Any Sata II drives would be great. Intel 320, Samsung 470, Vortex drives, OWC drives.

Don't know if it pays to return it and get something different as long as you know that you are limited to the amount of speed you will get from that drive
 

jimbomoss

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 30, 2004
12
0
S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) is the reason.
You can use the following applications to benchmark the speed of your SSD, to see, if S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) and not the application is the culprit:

And you can look into System Profiler (System Report on Lion) > Hardware > Serial-ATA, to see, that you have an S-ATA 1.5 Gbps (S-ATA I) interface.
Here's the Xbench results. How can I tell if it's the SATA-1 not the application?

http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=567567
 

NickZac

macrumors 68000
Dec 11, 2010
1,758
1
The maximum transfer rate for SATA 1.5 GBPS is 157 MB/s and so your benchmark reflects that almost exactly. It's still a great drive and if you ever decide to upgrade, then you already have future-proofed SSD (so you can buy one with the most basic HDD and save $) so personally I'd keep it. Even 157 MB/s over a HDD from that era is a tremendous gain.
 

definitive

macrumors 68000
Aug 4, 2008
1,960
699
I have macbook pro 13" 2009, sata 2,

If i go with the same drive, what would my bench mark be? I am using 7200rpm now, and they are around 80s to 90s.
go in to your about this mac > more info/system report > check under serial-ata. check the negotiated link speed. if it shows 1.5, then you won't get much of a boost. if it says 3, then you'll probably see a speed increase.
 

Freyqq

macrumors 601
Dec 13, 2004
4,015
169
your computer has only sata I. So, while the drive is very fast, the bottleneck is the speed that the drive can transfer data to and from the rest of the computer.

However, most hard drives can do about 60-80 mbps, so you're still doing about ~2 times faster than your old hard drive.
 

jimbomoss

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 30, 2004
12
0
The maximum transfer rate for SATA 1.5 GBPS is 157 MB/s and so your benchmark reflects that almost exactly. It's still a great drive and if you ever decide to upgrade, then you already have future-proofed SSD (so you can buy one with the most basic HDD and save $) so personally I'd keep it. Even 157 MB/s over a HDD from that era is a tremendous gain.
Right. I am actually really happy with the performance over my old HDD. I will keep it. Really don't have a choice. But I'd keep if if I did.
 

macintoshi

macrumors 6502
Dec 11, 2008
333
20
Switzerland
i would like to put a ssd inside my new comeing ivy bridge macbook, but am trown between kingston, owc and the allready existent samsung in macbook. can anybody tell me witch of them is best in speed? thz
ps: i want o course a 480-512gb ssd
 

macintoshi

macrumors 6502
Dec 11, 2008
333
20
Switzerland
i would like to put a ssd inside my new comeing ivy bridge macbook, but am trown between kingston, owc and the allready existent samsung in macbook. can anybody tell me witch of them is best in speed? thz
ps: i want o course a 480-512gb ssd
Why are you repeating my question?
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,668
27
located
Why are you repeating my question?
Yeah, I just noticed. It is a SPAMMER and that is one of their tactics.
After a certain amount of posts, a signature with a link will be added.
Or as you can see, small .gif files, that give the server they reside on some traffic. Now the mod has to delete this too?
 

NickZac

macrumors 68000
Dec 11, 2010
1,758
1
ur macbook is to ancient to support modern technology
You could be a little more diplomatic when conveying your thoughts.



i would like to put a ssd inside my new comeing ivy bridge macbook, but am trown between kingston, owc and the allready existent samsung in macbook. can anybody tell me witch of them is best in speed? thz
ps: i want o course a 480-512gb ssd
Samsung 830 or Crucial M4 or Intel 510/520/320. And unless things have changed, the factory one is a Toshiba SATA 3.0 Gbps, so any 6.0 Gbps SSD is going to be faster (and cheaper if going above 128 GB)