Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Does this look like a proper benchmark for SanDisk SSD?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 harryhh

harryhh

  • Members
  • 53 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Princeton, ILL
  • Local time:08:45 AM

Posted 08 July 2018 - 01:03 AM

Hello All,

 

I purchased and installed a new 240Gb SSD in my computer as my C drive. I also have a regular hard drive in this computer.

 

SanDisk SSD Plus 240G. https://www.sandisk.com/home/ssd/ssd-plus

 

On the SSD I installed my anti-viurs, browser, and a couple of other things. Not much at all. I did a TRIM on the ssd drive.

 

File Explorer says I have 191GB free of 223GB.

 

Windows boots much faster, but other things seem slow. Mainly browser stuff. Too early to tell about that though. My anti-virus seems to load no faster, perhaps slower.

 

I used Crystal Disk Mark to do a benchmark test of the SSD. I have no idea of what real world specs should be for an SSD. Perhaps someone could tell me if the following is proper.

 

 

Seems it won't let me post a picture. Says that extension is not allowed on this sight. Didn't let me post PNG or jpg.  But, rules say pictures can be posted. So what the....

 

CrystalDiskMark 6.0.1 x64 © 2007-2018 hiyohiyo
                          Crystal Dew World : https://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) :   401.560 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) :   340.406 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q=  8,T= 8) :    20.653 MB/s [   5042.2 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q=  8,T= 8) :    22.023 MB/s [   5376.7 IOPS]
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :    20.597 MB/s [   5028.6 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) :    21.666 MB/s [   5289.6 IOPS]
  Random Read 4KiB (Q=  1,T= 1) :    19.545 MB/s [   4771.7 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q=  1,T= 1) :    19.722 MB/s [   4814.9 IOPS]

  Test : 1024 MiB [C: 14.3% (31.9/223.1 GiB)] (x4)  [Interval=5 sec]
  Date : 2018/07/07 16:56:34
    OS : Windows 10  [10.0 Build 10240] (x64)

 

 

 

AS SSD Benchmark

 

...................................... READ...........................WRITE

Seq.................................308................................295

4K.....................................13.................................18

4K-64Thrd........................12...................................7

Acc.time.........................   .300  ........................  .472

Score..................................57................................56

........................................................147

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text worked. I don't have text for AS SSD Benchmark.

 

Harry


Can't keep up with the computer stuff anymore. It's getting beyond me.  :mellow:


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:01:45 PM

Posted 08 July 2018 - 06:26 AM

It doesn't look abnormal to me.  It's one of the cheapest SSD's available and was never going to be a top performer.  They have according to Tom's Hardware changed the spec of the device various times during it's life cycle without changing the branding, so it's components can vary... It will nonetheless be faster than a HDD.

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dramless-ssd-roundup,4833-3.html


7sbvuf-6.png


#3 harryhh

harryhh
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 53 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Princeton, ILL
  • Local time:08:45 AM

Posted 08 July 2018 - 10:02 AM

Thank you jonuk76,

 

It was cheap, that,s why I was able to afford. I am unfamiliar with, and un-knowledgeable about SSD's. That's why I'm being a little cautious about the thing. That, and so far, a number of little things seem to be the same speed or slower. The only thing that I've noticed that is faster is windows boots in less than half the time it used to even before I apparently got a virus.


Can't keep up with the computer stuff anymore. It's getting beyond me.  :mellow:


#4 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 2,182 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:01:45 PM

Posted 08 July 2018 - 06:12 PM

Well I think I think a high end hard drive will have sequential data transfer rates of around 200 MB/s but it will vary depending on the part of the disk platter being read.  You are getting 3-400 MB/s depending on which program is measuring.  Fast PCI Express based drives can reach more like 3000 MB/s, but this is really only an advantage on large file operations, which most computer users don't do regularly.  Where the SSD really excels though is random access times, which are vastly faster on a SSD compared to a HDD.  This is the case even for basic, low end SSD's, although better models are faster here.

 

It's odd you've found browsing slower - I've never really noticed much difference there either way (HDD or SSD based system) although I suppose accessing disk caches should be faster on the SSD system.  Programs themselves should open quicker though.  I've got no specific thoughts on time taken to load an AV program - I've never really noticed that being an issue.  Besides I would expect the "back end" of those programs to load up fairly early in Windows start up process.  Time taken to do a scan, I should imagine that disk speed is a factor there, although the CPU and memory comes into play as well.  Also I think in general AV apps try to do their work without stopping you doing your own (i.e. prioritise lower resource use over scan speed).  If they just used all available resources to run a virus scan at maximum speed, you might pretty much have to wait for it to finish before doing anything else, which many would find annoying.


7sbvuf-6.png


#5 harryhh

harryhh
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 53 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Princeton, ILL
  • Local time:08:45 AM

Posted 09 July 2018 - 11:26 AM

Thank you jonuk76 for your info and thoughts on the matter. That's interesting to know.

 

I'll keep an eye on how fast that ssd drive seems to work, and watch for anything that seems unusually slow.

 

I had done that extended S.M.A.R.T. test that said it might take 10 minutes or more. It took 39 minutes. I wasn't expecting that.

I downloaded Steam streaming and one of the games I play onto my regular drive. That was excruciatingly slow and I wondered if that new ssd was somehow affecting the download speed. It may just have been that Steam was unusually slow at the time. There were a few other things that seem to be slow.

 

Mainly, I wanted to get an opinion of the stats that the benchmark showed before I went to all the work of loading my software onto the drive. Since the ssd drive seems to be normal so far, I'll go ahead and start loading my programs.

 

Thank you,

Harry


Can't keep up with the computer stuff anymore. It's getting beyond me.  :mellow:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users