EDIT: i think i will do it like this to start with, cause my initial impression of SSD's are from running it on a bad setup, i cant find out what the problem is and the disks are fine in Windows 7. Everyone who posts now doesnt understand that i have issues with the drives on XP, and rather than trying to help me out sorting my problem they are giving me explanations as to why SSD's doesnt obtain the speeds by what they are advertized as. They are basically outputting 1/4 to 1/3 by swapping them back and forth in windows and the vertex 3 has given me the same results in benchmarks since it was brand new 4 days ago. Before you start with that its trim thats kicking in think a little about that the drive would not bench much higher in windows 7 if it was that cluttered and choked up like that. There are issues on my XP installation with them which im trying to sort out, and if you can help, or have some tips or ideas then please. Here is my uber photo shops skills and thanks... lol
I will leave the rest of the thread as it is, its still fun to read, but i think people read the first post and think that im crying about not getting 500MB/s and people start to post without realizing that i actually have a bad setup and got my impressions from that. Windows 7 is fine and the disks reflects much of the performance from the benchmarks on both of them respectively working with standard reads and writes on files through the operating systems.
The disk is unused and just benched after the windows 7 bench.
Heres is where the thread started;
------------------------------------------------
What i don't understand with these SSD drives are their advertized read/write performance. When you try to do a simple task like copy a file in windows it ends up with 1/4 of the actual advertized performance and a mere 2-2.5 increase over the old mechanical HDD's. I'm not talking super small file copies.
Where is the bottleneck anyways and whats up with those numbers? 500Mb/s? Where? How?
There is probably an explanation for this with smart-ass calculus, Ive heard a few, doesn't make sense to me, somebody willing to explain?
I even run ATTO and i get numbers in the 400-550Mb/s region, both Read and Write. When do i actually get this speed when working in windows? My system can read and write it but my drive is not able to write at those speeds when im actually copying a file? whats the deal? What about actual file transfers from and to the disk? How can i see this when i work on a system? The highest i have seen in real world performance is about 78Mb/s, trying to copy a simple file from 1 drive to another and end up with speeds around 60-75Mb/s.... whats up with all these numbers? file copy is basically just doubled, tripled in some cases compared to the old HDD, that's good and all, but all the fuss and numbers about they are so super fast. I don't see it.
EDIT: lol.
The benchmarks and advertizement numbers are like 10x higher than their actual performance when u get to work on them... If i actually had the advertized speed working in windows i would have copied 720p rips in a few seconds, i end up with the 60mb/s and i sit there watching wondering what those numbers are about. Only reason I'm reasonable happy with ssd's are cause they run cold, silent and low power, and last about the speeds. And every single site i go to are comparing these drives with those benchmarks of those half a gig numbers up to each other. Whats up with that? When you actually see that the drive is on the average just performing 2-2.5 times of the old mechanical drives when you copy a file it makes one wonder what all these ads and benchmarks are about. am i bottlenecked? lol
I will leave the rest of the thread as it is, its still fun to read, but i think people read the first post and think that im crying about not getting 500MB/s and people start to post without realizing that i actually have a bad setup and got my impressions from that. Windows 7 is fine and the disks reflects much of the performance from the benchmarks on both of them respectively working with standard reads and writes on files through the operating systems.
The disk is unused and just benched after the windows 7 bench.
Heres is where the thread started;
------------------------------------------------
What i don't understand with these SSD drives are their advertized read/write performance. When you try to do a simple task like copy a file in windows it ends up with 1/4 of the actual advertized performance and a mere 2-2.5 increase over the old mechanical HDD's. I'm not talking super small file copies.
Where is the bottleneck anyways and whats up with those numbers? 500Mb/s? Where? How?
There is probably an explanation for this with smart-ass calculus, Ive heard a few, doesn't make sense to me, somebody willing to explain?
I even run ATTO and i get numbers in the 400-550Mb/s region, both Read and Write. When do i actually get this speed when working in windows? My system can read and write it but my drive is not able to write at those speeds when im actually copying a file? whats the deal? What about actual file transfers from and to the disk? How can i see this when i work on a system? The highest i have seen in real world performance is about 78Mb/s, trying to copy a simple file from 1 drive to another and end up with speeds around 60-75Mb/s.... whats up with all these numbers? file copy is basically just doubled, tripled in some cases compared to the old HDD, that's good and all, but all the fuss and numbers about they are so super fast. I don't see it.
EDIT: lol.
The benchmarks and advertizement numbers are like 10x higher than their actual performance when u get to work on them... If i actually had the advertized speed working in windows i would have copied 720p rips in a few seconds, i end up with the 60mb/s and i sit there watching wondering what those numbers are about. Only reason I'm reasonable happy with ssd's are cause they run cold, silent and low power, and last about the speeds. And every single site i go to are comparing these drives with those benchmarks of those half a gig numbers up to each other. Whats up with that? When you actually see that the drive is on the average just performing 2-2.5 times of the old mechanical drives when you copy a file it makes one wonder what all these ads and benchmarks are about. am i bottlenecked? lol
Last edited: