A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Anything and everything software related that doesn't fit above can go in here!

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby darren » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:18 am

I`m glad to hear that is the case because otherwise it would not be an accurate representation of an SSD's performance.

We are not worthy =D> Thanks again.
darren
Legit User
Legit User
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:00 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby Apoptosis » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:42 am

Do you know what the registry file is for in the extracted folder?
Find us on Facebook to discover the faces behind the names!
Follow Me on Twitter!
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 32984
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby AFracturedHand » Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:26 pm

Image
AFracturedHand
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:25 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby FZ1 » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:55 am

A little more info would be helpful such as the SSD being used and system specs. I'm assuming you are using RAID?
Joe
User avatar
FZ1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4436
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby AFracturedHand » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:59 am

Sorry, 2 64 gb Crucial SSD's in RAID 0

Asus P7P55 LX Board
Intel i5 2.66 Ghz Quad (3.99 OC)
8 Gb DDR3 1600 Crucial Ballistix
2x250 gb Western Digitial HDD Caviar Blue
Arctic Freezer v2 Heatsink
XFX Radeon 5770
850w Thermaltake Modular
Windows 7 Professional x64
AFracturedHand
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:25 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby PAUL41 » Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:41 pm

Just to add i bought a pair of Kingston SSDNOW 40GB x 2 for RAID 0 Configuration in Windows 7.

Here were my results

AS SSD Benchmark 1.4.3644.39581
------------------------------
Name: MainDisk
Firmware: 1.0.
Controller: iaStor
Offset: 103424 K
Size: 74.50 GB
Date: 23/12/2009 22:38:35
------------------------------
Sequential:
------------------------------
Read: 310.47 MB/s
Write: 83.99 MB/s
------------------------------
4K:
------------------------------
Read: 19.80 MB/s
Write: 40.51 MB/s
------------------------------
4K-64Threads:
------------------------------
Read: 235.12 MB/s
Write: 69.23 MB/s
------------------------------
Access Times:
------------------------------
Read: 0.143 ms
Write: 0.098 ms
------------------------------
Score:
------------------------------
Read: 286
Write: 118
Total: 546
------------------------------

Asus P6TD Deluxe
Intel i7 920 D0 still to overclock
6 Gb DDR3 1600 Corsair Dominator
XFX Radeon 5970
850w Thermaltake Modular
Antec 1200 + Dark Knight S1283V Heatsink and Fan
Windows 7 Professional x64
Attachments
as-ssd-bench MainDisk 23.12.2009 22-38-26.png
as-ssd-bench MainDisk 23.12.2009 22-38-26.png (37.05 KiB) Viewed 10311 times
PAUL41
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:24 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby shamrok3 » Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:48 pm

Great to see a dev on the forums! *High fives*
Multiple Exclamation marks - The first sign of an unsound mind.

Rig: AMD Phenom II 940BE, Noctua U12P-SE2 , DFI LP DK-790FX M2RS, 8GB DDR2, 1TB Samsung F3, XFX ATi HD4890 1GB, CM 650 Watt PSU
Thermaltake M9 Case, LG Blu-Ray Writer/Combo
21.5" BenQ E2200HD @ 1920x1080, Razer Lachesis/Lycosa/Carcharias, Windows 7 HP 64 Bit
User avatar
shamrok3
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:53 pm
Location: Australia

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby drexor69 » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:13 pm

Great tool except that without being able to adjust your queue depth you won't get real world performance results. The results don't measure how performance scales when you're able to take advantage of NCQ. It appears to me (us) that it's set at a queue depth of 1 so SandForce based drives are never going to look as good as they really are...
drexor69
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:13 am

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby nsa666 » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:21 pm

The 4k-64 test uses 64 queue depth! SandForce shows only good performance on compressable(for example zeros only like other benchmarks) data. My Benchmark uses pseudo-random data that cant be compressed-> SandForce performes bad.
_(){ _|_& };_
Image
C2Q Q6600 @3ghz, Abit IP35 Pro, GF580, 4GB RAM, Vertex2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RGkS9Khh_4
nsa666
Legit User
Legit User
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby drexor69 » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:16 pm

nsa666 wrote:The 4k-64 test uses 64 queue depth! SandForce shows only good performance on compressable(for example zeros only like other benchmarks) data. My Benchmark uses pseudo-random data that cant be compressed-> SandForce performes bad.


I stand corrected! ;-)

BUT if that's the case you should think about a way to include compressible data then. Most people are using SSD's for boot drives and how it handles incompressible data needs to be weighted properly against how it handles compressible data. Based on my own testing I would conclude that most of the data used in running the OS (boot, program execution) is compressible and the SandForce controller outperforms competing drives at doing what consumers are buying an SSD for.
drexor69
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:13 am

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby InspectahACE » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:19 pm

Im left feeling a bit weird. Is it just me or does the 4k reads/writes seem kind of low?

Also, I noticed everyone else's access time on their writes, but mine is way above all that. I re-enabled AHCI through the link FZ1 posted on here a year ago(since a recent power outage reset it back to IDE and I just noticed). Shouldn't have had an affect on it should it?

Btw, this is the first time I ran this so I could just be trippin and that's how the SSD I have is
Attachments
KingstonSSDBenchmark.jpg
KingstonSSDBenchmark.jpg (71.44 KiB) Viewed 8625 times
i7 3930K @ 4 Ghz | Asus Rampage IV Extreme | Asus GTX TITAN SLI | 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3-1866 | Corsair H80i | Corsair Force GT 90 GB SSD | 2x Corsair Force GT 240 GB SSD | 450GB VelociRaptor | Sound Blaster Z | Corsair AX1200i PSU | Logitech G500 | Logitech G110| CM HAF-932 Black Edition | Asus VS248H-P | Win7 Ultimate 64-bit

Lenovo Z575 - A6-3400 | 8GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600 | Kingston HyperX 240GB SSD
User avatar
InspectahACE
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
 
Posts: 1749
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Las Vegas

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby chrisman2731 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:21 am

Great tool, I look forward to tracking its development. Please see the SS for my results. I am a little disappointed in my Seq Writes as I have two OCZ 50GB SSDs (OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTX50G 2.5")
Sequential Access - Read up to 285MB/s
Sequential Access - Write up to 275MB/s

Computer Specs:
Core i7 930 2.8 OC - 4GHz (Water Cooled)
Asus P6T7 WS Super Computer (Water Cooled)
DVDRW
2 X EVGA GTX 295 Hydros (Water Cooled)
3 X 120MM Rads
6 GB OCZ DDR3 2000MHz Ram running at 1600MHz
Attachments
SSD_Results.GIF
SSD_Results.GIF (98.84 KiB) Viewed 8623 times
chrisman2731
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:44 am

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby nsa666 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:20 am

As i said. 275MB/s write is not true for real data, only for zeros.
_(){ _|_& };_
Image
C2Q Q6600 @3ghz, Abit IP35 Pro, GF580, 4GB RAM, Vertex2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RGkS9Khh_4
nsa666
Legit User
Legit User
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby chrisman2731 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:31 pm

I was not aware of how they rated the write speeds. However I was not expecting to get 275MB Seq Write off of a single disk but I figured with 2 drives in Raid 0 I would be closer. Never the less these SSD are soo much faster than my 4 disk SAS Raid 0 and this tool works very well. Thanks
chrisman2731
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:44 am

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby trickson » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:48 am

This is my first day with my new SSD drive and I think it is kinda silly calling it a drive as there are no moving parts .
This thing is great I love the speed and can not wait to get a second one ! here are my results using One Intel X25-M SATA SSD ( Card ) .
System : Q9650 @4.0GHz , 4GB Kingston Hyper X , Custom water cooling . :supz:

Looks like all I have to do is get another one and raid0 them ? running 2 seems to speed them up even more [-o<
One thing I think will have to happen soon for them is the pricing of these things . $200 Dollars ( US ) for a tiny bit of space . I sure hope to see them dipping into the 80-100 range , They would make a fortune from the geeks out there ! But again we just keep :beatdeadhorse: when we cry about it so we just suck it up and get them any way .
Attachments
222.jpg
Q9650 @4.0GHz , 8GB Kingston Hyper X gaming RAM , 2 Barracudas in Raid0 1Tb , ATI HD5870 and custom water cooling . Windows 7 64 bit Pro.
trickson
Legit User
Legit User
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:32 am

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby thedreadedgman » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:06 am

Hello is this the correct place to request changes to the software? :?

I really like the benchmark :) , and use it quite a bit and have compiled a spreadsheet on the Overclock.net forums: http://www.overclock.net/ssd/754763-ssd ... hread.html

One thing that has been irritating me is the GB and GiB difference on SSDs...

Some are sold using the GB amount, and some are sold using the GiB (binary GB) amount...

Windows of course mis-labels GiB as GB... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GiB

Would be really nice if the software could show GB or have the label changed to GiB... either would clear up the confusion.

For example:
256 GB is just under 239 GiB
256 GiB is about 275 GB
thedreadedgman
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:59 am

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby shay » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm

owc mercury pro 40GB Benchmark on
Asus g1Sn-B2
4GB 667MHZ
Core 2 duo T9300 2501MHZ
nvidia 9500m 512MB
Windows 7 Professional
Attachments
as-ssd-bench OWC Mercury Extr 25.08.2010 08-11-29.png
as-ssd-bench OWC Mercury Extr 25.08.2010 08-11-29.png (37.99 KiB) Viewed 8454 times
shay
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:13 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby highaltitude » Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:39 pm

How'd you get it to read in English? LOl I downloaded it and ran it but its all in German. I did find the drop down where it gives a choice of english or dutch, english is checked but its all still german.? hmm
Cooler Master HAF 932 full tower, ASUS P6X58D Premium Mobo, Intel i7 930 2.8Ghz CPU OC'd to 3.75Ghz, Cooler Master V8 heatsink, EVGA GTX260 SC SLI video card, Corsair TX750 watt power supply, 128Gb Crucial SSD C300,2x 1TB 6Gb/s Sata3 hard drives in RAID0, LG Blueray Burner, 6GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 memory & 500GB external drive, running Windows 7 Ultimate x64.
User avatar
highaltitude
Legit Enthusiast
Legit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:20 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby nsa666 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:12 am

Did you extraced it correctly? With en-US Folder?
_(){ _|_& };_
Image
C2Q Q6600 @3ghz, Abit IP35 Pro, GF580, 4GB RAM, Vertex2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RGkS9Khh_4
nsa666
Legit User
Legit User
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: A Benchmark For Just SSDs - AS SSD Benchmark

Postby chato.pl » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:17 pm

Hello @ll!
I bought my first SSD - ADATA S596 Turbo 64GB.
When I wanted to check transfers (on AS SSD Benchmark), I saw this => 31 K BAD.

Image
I ran HDDScan and HD Tune Pro to scan disk, but they found no errors :rolleyes:
Image
Image
So, what should I think about it :?:

PS.
I formatted disk twice (full format).
__
[sorry 4 my english]
User avatar
chato.pl
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:46 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Software Programs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests