Intel 510 Perf seems poor

R

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
Hi all,

Wondering if I've got something configured wrong here...

I'm running a Intel 510 250GB SSD on my Sabertooth X58 board, and I've got the drive plugged into the Marvel SATA3 port. Using CrystalInfo, I can see it's marked as being on a SATA3/6Gbps port.

Now, running Crystalmark on the drive, while Windows is also booted...well, this:

CDM.png


I'll boot onto my old RAID array and run the tool while Windows isn't running on the SSD to see if I find a difference, but...what the hell? Compared to what every reviewer got, that's...pretty fucking terrible.
 
Have you done all the SSD tweaks for Windows? Can you load AS-SSD to chack your partition block alignment? Run any other benchies to check that 4k read (that's what really lacking there)? Clean install of Windows on the drive?

You may still be able to find a free version of the Paragon Alignment Tool if you migrated Windows.
 
And here is while I'm running Windows from a different HD - perf seems to improve SOME, but not much.

CDM1.PNG


Is this due to the SATA3 controller I have not being very good? Is it just that everyone is benchmarking on P67 or something?
 
vick1000 said:
Have you done all the SSD tweaks for Windows? Can you load AS-SSD to chack your partition block alignment? Run any other benchies to check that 4k read (that's what really lacking there)? Clean install of Windows on the drive?

You may still be able to find a free version of the Paragon Alignment Tool if you migrated Windows.
Click to expand...

Clean windows install. Alignment looked good from what I could tell. Ran the Intel toolbox, killed Superfetch. I'll nab AS-SSD right now.

EDIT AS-SSD shows alignment as good...benchmark shows numbers as bad or worse than CDM - but not much different.

as-ssd-bench%20INTEL%20SS%20DSC2MH2%207.14.2011%2010-57-09%20PM.png
 
Last edited:
And there it is. AHCI off...enabled that (and played around with the registry settings for AHCI) ANNNND...screw you ASUS:

I know that due to the single lane PCIe interface the Marvell controller is performance limited to below full SATA3 speeds
Click to expand...
http://forums.storagereview.com/ind...tel-510-ssd-on-x58-ich10r-marvell-quick-test/

Seems my perf is right in line with expected.

Now to decide if I want to go with the SATA2 interface or the gimped SATA"3" interface.

Are there any PCIe cards that use a x2 or x4 slot that might help this problem some?

New results with AHCI turned on:
as-ssd-bench%20INTEL%20SSDSC2MH25%207.15.2011%203-21-21%20AM.png



Thanks!!
 
Last edited:
I've tried my 250GB Intel 510s on the ICH10 SATA 2 ports, and the Marvel 9182 SATA 3 ports on my Gigabyte Sniper board. The 9182 chip has better performance than what you listed here for your 9128 chip, and in my comparison the SATA 2 ports afforded about 20% decrease in performance for 4k reads and access times. Sequential reads and writes were also severely affected, but were less of a concern.

Your results may differ with ICH10 vs. Marvell 9128, however, so try it and see. The 9182 has improved performance and uses two PCIE lanes for increased bandwidth.

Also, you may want to check around for updated firmware and drivers for the 9128, that might increase your performance a bit.
 
Balthazor said:
I've tried my 250GB Intel 510s on the ICH10 SATA 2 ports, and the Marvel 9182 SATA 3 ports on my Gigabyte Sniper board. The 9182 chip has better performance than what you listed here for your 9128 chip, and in my comparison the SATA 2 ports afforded about 20% decrease in performance for 4k reads and access times. Sequential reads and writes were also severely affected, but were less of a concern.

Your results may differ with ICH10 vs. Marvell 9128, however, so try it and see. The 9182 has improved performance and uses two PCIE lanes for increased bandwidth.

Also, you may want to check around for updated firmware and drivers for the 9128, that might increase your performance a bit.
Click to expand...

Isn't the 91XX different? I don't think there's any fix?
 
The drivers listed under the 91XX section apply to your 9128 chip.

The firmware in that same section is specific to certain chips, so look for the most recent for the 9128.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top