bad perfomance with my Falcon 64gb

[Schinzie]

u dont see my problem.

the problem is,that i tried the drive on another mainboard, and there i got a very good speed. but on my motherboard speed is about 40% slower in the essential 4kb section.


greetings

[Schinzie]

Here, this is my bad perfomance. It isnt?t normal. I got better results on another Mainboard.

[barrychuck]

You will not get 190mb/s write unless you have "free blocks" (cells that are completly blank) free on the ssd. This is why wiper improves performance because it "clears" (erases) all invalid blocks, so that they can be written to. Any SSD over half full begins to have write performance delays due to the fact you are erasing before you can write to a block of data. the bottom line is that performance is a tradeoff of wear (limited number of writes per block).

[Schinzie]

first, i should get around 230mb/s write perfomance, and second i used wiperd before the benchmark.

and last but not least, i havent big problemsn with my sequential read marks, but my 4K marks are so extremly bad.

compare my results with the other ones...


greetings

[TwoCables]

first, i should get around 230mb/s write perfomance, and second i used wiperd before the benchmark.

and last but not least, i havent big problemsn with my sequential read marks, but my 4K marks are so extremly bad.

compare my results with the other ones...


greetings

Why should you get around 230? Is it because it says you can get up to 230/135?

I don't really want to be rude, but I was getting 220-225 when my SSD was brand new. But I didn't complain because I know that the speed is advertised as "up to" 230, or "230 MB/sec MAX" That means "not everyone will see 230 MB/sec. And when somebody does see it, they should not expect it all the time. We are saying that you can expect speeds UP TO 230 MB/sec max".

Nowhere is it guaranteed that we will see speeds at 230 MB/sec. In other words, we shouldn't expect it, but we shouldn't be surprised if we see it either! And I'll tell you what: I never see more than 224MB/sec in my ATTO Benchmark, which shows higher scores than CrystalDiskMark (I got much, much lower scores in CrystalDiskMark). But I'm not going to complain that I didn't get what I paid for. I most certainly got what I paid for because it feels much faster than my 150 GB VelociRaptor.

But damn, if you really don't like it, then just send it back. RMA it. Get a refund. But to be honest: I really don't think there's that big of a problem with your SSD. After all, you said it yourself that the speed is noticeably faster. Were you expecting it to be lightning fast? If so, then we aren't there yet. We're gonna have to wait at least another year before we starting seeing drives that fast which are also affordable.

I fully understand that the drive got better performance on the other motherboard: but that only means and proves one thing: every system is different. But it doesn't mean there's a problem with your system. It just means that, in your particular system, you probably won't ever see faster speeds than this with any 64 GB G.SKILL Falcon.

[Schwanke78]

first, i should get around 230mb/s write perfomance, and second i used wiperd before the benchmark.

and last but not least, i havent big problemsn with my sequential read marks, but my 4K marks are so extremly bad.

compare my results with the other ones...


greetings

Two things to keep in mind when dealing with benchmarks, one is there synthetic and two no two are exactly alike. Your complaint about the 4kb right is nothing new, SSD ‘s suffer smaller write speeds and have always been low nothing new here. HD tune is an alright benchmark since it samples the entire write and is an acceptable gauge for fine tuning. But I see that your hitting 171mb’s that’s not too shabby to be honest, if you want more speed then that go Raid-0 otherwise I think your fine with what you have.

[Extide]

I have a 128GB Falcon. Here is what I get day in and day out:



Looks to me like you are running in SATA 1 mode (1.5Gbit) instead of SATA 2 (3Gbit)

[Schinzie]

i connected it to sata 2 connectors, and in my bios i cant change any sata options. Only dma settings etc.


greetings

[Extide]

If you are feeling adventurous there is some information on this page that might help.

EDIT: Nevermind this link is for Intel ICH controllers, you seem to be running an AMD platform so that wont help. I wonder if there is something similar though.

[micro9mm]

I too am getting poor performance from my 128gb falcon. I'm on windows 7 build 7600 x64. Here's a couple of examples from benchmarks.





Please don't give me that BS about advertised speeds not being necessary. this is nearly a two thirds difference. If I bought a 10k rpm raptor HDD and it only spins at 7200rpm, well guess what, it's not what I bought.

I've been getting results like this from the moment I've installed the drive. I have tried running whiper.exe anyway, but it don't run and gives the same error others are talking about on this board "No drive installed proper firmware found". And yes I have it on drive 0, and yes I've run cmd as administrator.

Also, I'm concerned that these drives seem to be going away. Newegg has the drive I purchased as "deactivated" as opposed to "out of stock". Not a good sign. I think I'm going to RMA with them unless G.Skill can do something to help get me the performance I payed for.

[Nyarlathotep]

I would suggest to TRIM, but I had bad results with same revision of W7 your using.

[Schwanke78]

I too am getting poor performance from my 128gb falcon. I'm on windows 7 build 7600 x64. Here's a couple of examples from benchmarks.





Please don't give me that BS about advertised speeds not being necessary. this is nearly a two thirds difference. If I bought a 10k rpm raptor HDD and it only spins at 7200rpm, well guess what, it's not what I bought.

I've been getting results like this from the moment I've installed the drive. I have tried running whiper.exe anyway, but it don't run and gives the same error others are talking about on this board "No drive installed proper firmware found". And yes I have it on drive 0, and yes I've run cmd as administrator.

Also, I'm concerned that these drives seem to be going away. Newegg has the drive I purchased as "deactivated" as opposed to "out of stock". Not a good sign. I think I'm going to RMA with them unless G.Skill can do something to help get me the performance I payed for.

My buddy burned up two 128GB Falcon's, he does allot of programming and encoding for a software company. Not 100% on why the higher GB SSD's clunk out or have bad performance but maybe the chip stuffing causes allot more heat and wearing. Anyway what are you specs on your build and also do you have AHCI or IDE Enhanced as the installed option. I know some SSD's have to be in IDE mode, I installed a Patriot Warp V2 on my girlfriends Netbook and it had to be in IDE mode in order to install XP. I can agree with allot of frustration of many users, but I guess that is the price we pay for the latest technology. Also what is your experience with Windows 7, I never jumped on the beta test wagon since Vista 64 was running well for me with the proper tweaks. One more thing double check your SATA settings and make sure your running on SATA 3.0 or full speed pending on your motherboard and bio options.

[TwoCables]

Schwanke78: I just wanted to chime in on my Windows 7 experience: I installed the x64 Release Candidate, build 7100 on July 5th. I went straight from XP Pro SP2 x86, and so far I am absolutely in love with it. To my pleasant surprise, I haven't had a single problem with it whatsoever. Not only does it run really well, but the new pinned items feature on the Taskbar makes having a special keyboard that has programmed buttons for loading applications a thing of the past. For example: if I want to open the first pinned item (from left to right), then I just press WinKey+1. This works for the first 10 items using 1-9 plus the 0 key for the 10th item. It's like top row on the keyboard is the Taskbar, and each number key - including 0 - represents the first 10 items. I think this might be my favorite feature.

But another favorite feature of mine (which Vista users might not like) is the Desktop SlideShow for the wallpaper. It's a very non-CPU intensive smooth fade from one wallpaper to the next. But after talking with a Vista user about it, they were disgusted to find out that Windows 7 does not have DreamScene anymore. But to be honest, I wouldn't use it anyway since it puts more load on the CPU than this. The SlideShow puts almost no load on the CPU when it switches wallpaper.

Relevant specifications:

• EVGA 680i SLI (122-CK-NF68)
• E8400 @ 4.0 GHz with 1.328V on full load
• 2 x 2 GB DDR2 800 mushkin XP series (kit #996580)
• EVGA 9800 GTX+ (512-P3-N879)
• Samsung 2253BW (22" widescreen LCD)
• 64 GB Falcon