Low Falcon II Speeds, possibly faulty?

[-nighthawk-]

Hey,
I purchased a Falcon II a few weeks ago but it seems to be slow compared to others.

Firstly in the benchmarks it's showing lower results then other people, I have set the BIOS mode to AHCI and done a fresh install of Windows 7 etc. with 4096 bytes formatting. Sometimes I feel like it's stuttering and I'm pretty sure it makes some occasional squealing sounds like the videocards do.

Very pissed off considering my parents OCZ Vertex 60gb that was $150 less. performs faster.

Here are my results:

[bhobba]

Thats fine. Your AS Benchmark is spot on. If you wnat faster then raid them or wait until fusion i/o gets their drive bootable:
http://www.fusionio.com/products/ioxtreme/

Thanks
Bill

[-nighthawk-]

I've seen people with much higher results than mine with the 128GB II. I also get some stuttering issues on a few benchmarks I have noticed.

Is it a faulty drive?!

[bhobba]

Yours is virtually exactly same as others I have seem posted for the Falcon. However there does seem to be some variation even between exactly the same drives. For example I have seen an Intel record 110 on the 4k 64 thread score and another one record 150. I can't tell you if its the same as mine because I have mine raided. However your 4k 64 thread score is almost exactly half mine, which is what it should be raided.

That said it should not stutter. If its doing that then there is something the matter.

Thanks
Bill

[Chippy_boy]

Yours is virtually exactly same as others I have seem posted for the Falcon. However there does seem to be some variation even between exactly the same drives. For example I have seen an Intel record 110 on the 4k 64 thread score and another one record 150. I can't tell you if its the same as mine because I have mine raided. However your 4k 64 thread score is almost exactly half mine, which is what it should be raided.

That said it should not stutter. If its doing that then there is something the matter.

Thanks
Bill

This is a strange reply, considering in this thread:

http://gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=3963

the poster there is getting 216MB/s, which you also say is fine!

I am considering buying a Falcon II (hence my visiting here) but I am concerned to make sure it offers similar performance to the OCZ and Patriot Indilinx SSD drives. 160MB/s doesn't compare very favourably to be honest.

[macdaddy]

better if you can find falcon series 1 with the 1571 FW. Here is mine

raid 0 64k strip

[Chippy_boy]

Right! So up to 250MB/s read speed per drive.

160MB/s for the OP seems low to me.

[bhobba]

This is a strange reply, considering in this thread:

http://gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=3963

the poster there is getting 216MB/s, which you also say is fine!

I am considering buying a Falcon II (hence my visiting here) but I am concerned to make sure it offers similar performance to the OCZ and Patriot Indilinx SSD drives. 160MB/s doesn't compare very favourably to be honest.

I was referring to the AS SSD benchmark of the original poster. The post you referred to did not post that benchmark which is what I asked them to do. What they did post looked fine to me as the exact speed reported by benchmarks varies from benchmark to benchmark and even if you run the benchmark from the drive you are benchmarking or not. For example under the AS SSD Benchmark my raided Falcons gives 308.88 mbs read but ATTO gives 404 mbs. It gave 378 when I ran it off my D drive. I only tried it off my c drive when I read a post somewhere that it makes a difference. It did - go figure. Bottom line here is quite a lot of factors affect exactly what results you get.

You will find plenty of reviews that show the Falcon performs about the same as an ocz eg:
http://www.ccereviews.com/reviews/gs...-25s2s-64gbf1/

This is only to be expected since it is exactly the same hardware.

Thanks
Bill

[Chippy_boy]

I was referring to the AS SSD benchmark of the original poster.

Well that's as maybe (not that you said so at the time).

But it doesn't change the fact that the OP's HDTune read performance is some 50MB/s lower than someone else's.

I would have thought that needed some more explanation other than "That's fine. Your benchmark is spot on". Clearly it isn't.

[-nighthawk-]

This guy is using EXACTLY the same drive (no RAID)

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...d.php?t=832874

As you can see his results are much higher

[bhobba]

This guy is using EXACTLY the same drive (no RAID)

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...d.php?t=832874

As you can see his results are much higher

Scratching head What results are much higher? For the 4k 64 thread I think you got 64.96 while they got 31.12. The read speeds were 217.08 while yours is 192.23. I would suggest the difference in read speeds is nothing to worry about but the 4k 64 thrd speed is significantly different - with yours being much better. In fact it is this measure that is the more important benchmark than raw read speeds which only really shows up when you are dealing with large files. The 4k 64 thread speed indicates what a typical program or operating system does, especially when they start up and IMHO is much more important. In my raid setup it is approximately double yours at about 120 but 4 times the other guys. I would be more worried they had performance problems than yours.

What concerns me more about you is your complaint of stuttering. With a 64mb cache that shouldn't really be happening.

Thanks
Bill