Have you tried running these benchmarks in Safe Mode?
These benchmarks weren't don't in Safe Mode, but I've tried it now.
Even the average of two benchmark runs is even worse than what I get outside of Safe Mode, with both access times around 0,63 ms...
1 of 1 people found this helpful
My first X-25 M SSD is 2.5 years old, and I've never seen AS SSD results that were that odd. The 4K and Access Time results are quite poor, as you know, while the sequential results are normal, and the 4k-64Thrd speed is a little low.
Your screenshot shows msachi as the driver. You can't use the Intel IRST driver on an AMD chipset.
The Toolbox works fine for you with the AMD SATA chipset, and the Optimizer too as you said, correct? What does the Toolbox show for the drives health? How do the SMART attributes look in the Toolbox?
Have you had this SSD for a while, or is it new in that PC? Are you using any encryption software? How much free space does the drive have?
AMD tends to have quite a few options and settings for their SATA ports, which I am not familiar with, but checking them could help.
If your results were similar in Safe mode, that indicates you likely don't have a process that is slowing down the results.
IMO, using HDDErase to perform a Secure Erase would not be my first choice. If you chose anything that actually wrote zeros or ones to the SSD, that would not be good, but I would think that would affect your other results. I've read that the enhanced option is not good for use with SSDs, but not certain about that. Did you try the Toolbox Secure Erase?
Did you try a different cable, or moving the connection to one of the first SATA ports? CPU power saving options can affect benchmark results, but I've never seen 4K results that low even in that case.
The SSD Toolbox works without any problems, the process takes about a second on the disk (but I have clicked that button a lot the last few days). The SSD is about two years old I think. No idea if the results where any better in the beginning or not. I bought it when I made my current PC, so couldn't compare it to the system without an SSD. I do remember not being too impressed by the bootup times and such things. Should have ran some benchmarks at the time...
I didn't try the toolbox Secure Erase as this doesn't work when the SSD is the one with you OS on.
I don't have a second desktop here right now so can't really try it out either without doing a complete new install on a harddisk. If you think it's really worth a shot I could look in to it.
I haven't found too many options for the SATA ports (I suppose you mean in the BIOS, right?), but have tried the combinations and benchmarked the drive every time. The current setup is the fastest.
Just tried another cable and moving it to the first SATA port, but to no avail.
Where should I start looking regarding the CPU Power saving options? I haven't overclocked anything.
I'll take a look around what I can find about cpu power saving options and post if I find anything.
After playing around with the power settings in the Windows power options, I went to the maximum performance setting with no speed increase. When switching to power saving and after a reboot I got the almost double the 4K throughput and about half the access times (both read/write +/-0.200 ms).
A second benchmark however didn't confirm this and ever since most of the time I get about the same results as the first screenshot in the first post, but sometimes access times as low as 0,200 ms. These better results seem to come at random times. Doing the benchmark twice with only the access time test enabled can yield 4 times 0.4ms and then one time 0.200 ms.
All the time I kill as many processes as possible, watch the resource center to check that there aren't any unneccesary services or processes writing to the disk. No swapfiles on the SSD.
The SSD is on the first SATA port. Connecting my 4 other (non-ssd) drives doesn't seem to produce a noticable difference.
Is there a reliable alternative to AS SSD Benchmark that runs under Linux (command line or GUI) to check if that gives any difference?
I have no idea where to go from here. Any thoughts?
1 of 1 people found this helpful
What causes this is found here and applies to desktops.
Mostly it down to the CPU idling as the 4K test is done.
@PeterUK: Finally had some more time to try it out.
The tweak for the drivers didn't make any difference.
The tweak for enabling the option in power settings and then preventing the CPU from going into idle made a big difference. I now have these values:
(the language is in German because the language files didn't get copied properly).
Much better. Still not great, but much better. Seems the CPU going into idle makes a big difference.
Then did some measurements with a decent power meter. Before changing the setting, the computer used about 130 Watts in idle.
In the same situation but with the setting changed, it averaged out around 200 Watts.
I still wonder about why the values are rather bad (especially the access times), even after preventing the CPU from idling.
Any more thoughts?