Hey Unicorn, glad to see you around. I hope you can clarify me some stuffs am really confused.
I just bugth an 960gb M500 Crucial.
May you explain me this. So there is those EVO SSD 1tb and these Crucial M500, I was reading a thread here in overclock.net of Benchs over SSD. Then i saw benchmarks on EVO SSD, Numbers on EVO SSD
look.
are so impressive meanwhile my SSD is this
I think im goin to return mine this is sick, i feel riped off.
also, this review put the M500 960gb version sometimes under the 480Gb version?
The first bench has some issues and might be Raid0. I know this issue with my Thinkpad. Its showing me 500 mb/s 4k 64Thrd write which is impossible on sata2 and 7000+ with a Samsung Evo on sata 3 is also impossible even with raid0. Its a software problem.
The second bench is made with microsoft standard sata drivers! So its your own bench? If so install the Intel ahci drivers (Intel rapid storage technology) and make sure ahci is enabled in the bios. It should atleast double all your scores!
Hey Unicorn, glad to see you around. I hope you can clarify me some stuffs am really confused.
I just bugth an 960gb M500 Crucial.
May you explain me this. So there is those EVO SSD 1tb and these Crucial M500, I was reading a thread here in overclock.net of Benchs over SSD. Then i saw benchmarks on EVO SSD, Numbers on EVO SSD
look.
are so impressive meanwhile my SSD is this
I think im goin to return mine this is sick, i feel riped off.
also, this review put the M500 960gb version sometimes under the 480Gb version?
The Samsung Evo drive, through Samsung SSD Magician (their SSD software) caches your smaller files (when writing) to your dram (or otherwise, RAM, to be simplistic), and then over time, it writes that data onto the SSD. So you see inflated scores, but in reality, its just as slow, if not slower than most drives out there. It just uses the wickidly fast read/write capability of RAM to act as a buffer between the drive.
Basically, you can tell this from one simple fact. 6Gigabits = 768 Megabytes. Sequential files (large consecutive data) would most definitely be limited by 768 Megabytes/sec, but as you can see, it is using your RAM to cache (act as a buffer) between the data and the SSD.
Hence inflated Samsung Evo scores. Its a way to "cheat" benchmarks.
In terms of data security, the M500 would actually be the safer route, as you don't risk your data being lost in the buffer (cache to RAM in this case).
oh right I said its a issue with the bench but it was the weird caching mode from the evo which makes such a high score. Good said Kinaesthetic.
But the result is the same
Oh really guys?? you are making me recovery from my suddenly rage-buyer remorse lol. Ok So is there nothign wrong with my SSD (crucial M500)? im goin to do the thing ahci as you mentioned Pandora.
A few years ago when the Samsung 830 SSD's came out they were the cream f the crop. I have 4 of them in 2 different laptops. Their performance has been exceptional. 100% Trouble free and very FAST. When it comes to SSD's I feel Samsung is one of if not the best SSD mfg. From what I understand the 840 EVO is a step forward in performance over the 830's which are still a fantastic performing SSD still to date. I personally though will be picking up 4 840 Pro's for my next build.
A few years ago when the Samsung 830 SSD's came out they were the cream f the crop. I have 4 of them in 2 different laptops. Their performance has been exceptional. 100% Trouble free and very FAST. When it comes to SSD's I feel Samsung is one of if not the best SSD mfg. From what I understand the 840 EVO is a step forward in performance over the 830's which are still a fantastic performing SSD still to date. I personally though will be picking up 4 840 Pro's for my next build.
Oh really guys?? you are making me recovery from my suddenly rage-buyer remorse lol. Ok So is there nothign wrong with my SSD (crucial M500)? im goin to do the thing ahci as you mentioned Pandora.
Nope. That's just RAPID mode. It uses a RAM cache and really just inflates benchmarks. Only problem on your end is that you're plugged into a SATA II port. According to Newegg, your motherboard has two native Intel SATA III ports. Check your manual and plug it into one of those, but DO NOT USE THE MARVELL PORTS. They're fine for HDDs and ODDs, but they're crap quality and should never be used with SSDs.
Nope. That's just RAPID mode. It uses a RAM cache and really just inflates benchmarks. Only problem on your end is that you're plugged into a SATA II port. According to Newegg, your motherboard has two native Intel SATA III ports. Check your manual and plug it into one of those, but DO NOT USE THE MARVELL PORTS. They're fine for HDDs and ODDs, but they're crap quality and should never be used with SSDs.
Bigger SSDs are always faster than smaller drives. MLC drives are faster than TLC drives. My 250GB 840 on SATA II gets the same sequential speeds as your M500. They should be about 500MB/s for you if you are using an Intel SATA III port.
Bigger SSDs are always faster than smaller drives. MLC drives are faster than TLC drives. My 250GB 840 on SATA II gets the same sequential speeds as your M500. They should be about 500MB/s for you if you are using an Intel SATA III port.
Much better but still the driver is wrong. Not that the microsoft driver is bad but the Intel one could improve your performance aswell like I said before.
If you have the Intel drivers you can read it with AS SSD out. Like in the Samsung Evo bench you should see "iaStor - OK" and not "msahci - OK" as it in your case.
Much better but still the driver is wrong. Not that the microsoft driver is bad but the Intel one could improve your performance aswell like I said before.
If you have the Intel drivers you can read it with AS SSD out. Like in the Samsung Evo bench you should see "iaStor - OK" and not "msahci - OK" as it in your case.
Much better but still the driver is wrong. Not that the microsoft driver is bad but the Intel one could improve your performance aswell like I said before.
If you have the Intel drivers you can read it with AS SSD out. Like in the Samsung Evo bench you should see "iaStor - OK" and not "msahci - OK" as it in your case.
And EVOs are only faster for the first 12GB because SLC > MLC. M500s are faster for big and/or sustained writing, but it's negligible in the real world because of SATA III limitations and they're just so gosh-darned fast.
After 100TB of writes they saw weakness, so if you write at least 10GB a day for 20 years, you will have a SSD problem? lol...
Says all SSDs checked out at 20GB/day for 3 years, so not sure how you see "MLC > TLC for durability"
3 year warranty on all Samsung SSDs anyways. If you have a SSD longer than 3 years at a high read/write volume, you have other problems...
Yes MLC last longer than TLC but the probability of someone seeing this problem is slim to none. Shouldn't even be considered when selecting a SSD.
After 100TB of writes they saw weakness, so if you write at least 10GB a day for 20 years, you will have a SSD problem? lol...
Says all SSDs checked out at 20GB/day for 3 years, so not sure how you see "MLC > TLC for durability"
3 year warranty on all Samsung SSDs anyways. If you have a SSD longer than 3 years at a high read/write volume, you have other problems...
Yes MLC last longer than TLC but the probability of someone seeing this problem is slim to none. Shouldn't even be considered when selecting a SSD.
anyone can consider whatever they like when purchasing a SSD, even if it comes in a pretty pink case
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!