If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
This is a comparison of relative performance of an older 250gB Samsung
840EVO using a SATA III interface and a newly-released 500gB Samsung 960EVO using the M.2 form factor and PCI interface. Testing was performed on my daily-driver Shuttle SH170R6 i7-6700 system with 32gB of memory and the normal load of W10 background programs were running. I did pause the BOINC client which will use 100% of the cores and threads when given the chance and nothing else is going on but none of the other benchmarking preparations such as erasing between runs etc. were performed. The process of transferring the C: drive from one SSD to the other was simple and fast using the proprietary Samsung transfer program. Installation of the M.2 device is a bit counterintuitive in that you must physically install the device before the mandatory driver (which you must download, just like the transfer program) will consider installing itself; I would have expected it to be the other way round. Looking at the pictures doesn't begin to convey how small and delicate-looking the M.2 device is -- I felt as though I was working with mittens on while installing and securing it with that tiny post/screw without removing the graphics card blocking full access. As for the tests, everything seems as I would expect from reading published benchmarks except for the 4KiB Q=1 tests which didn't show any sort of stunning improvement unlike the Sequential Read - sometimes not even twice as fast. Don't know if there is any fine tuning to be done or if it is even possible but there is no denying that some operations are stunningly fast with the newer technology. You pays your money and you takes your chances, I guess... 250gB 840EVO with SATA III interface: Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 545.582 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 512.766 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 318.592 MB/s [ 77781.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 301.835 MB/s [ 73690.2 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 511.724 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 487.336 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 36.686 MB/s [ 8956.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 96.140 MB/s [ 23471.7 IOPS] Test : 100 MiB [C: 48.4% (106.8/220.8 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/12/15 21:06:58 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) 500gB 960EVO with M.2 PCI interface: Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 2707.609 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1795.993 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 640.562 MB/s [156387.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 561.352 MB/s [137048.8 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 1283.964 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 1759.944 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 51.039 MB/s [ 12460.7 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 214.907 MB/s [ 52467.5 IOPS] Test : 100 MiB [C: 22.2% (103.3/465.8 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/12/20 10:21:48 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) The test softwa ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
John McGaw wrote:
This is a comparison of relative performance of an older 250gB Samsung 840EVO using a SATA III interface and a newly-released 500gB Samsung 960EVO using the M.2 form factor and PCI interface. Testing was performed on my daily-driver Shuttle SH170R6 i7-6700 system with 32gB of memory and the normal load of W10 background programs were running. I did pause the BOINC client which will use 100% of the cores and threads when given the chance and nothing else is going on but none of the other benchmarking preparations such as erasing between runs etc. were performed. The process of transferring the C: drive from one SSD to the other was simple and fast using the proprietary Samsung transfer program. Installation of the M.2 device is a bit counterintuitive in that you must physically install the device before the mandatory driver (which you must download, just like the transfer program) will consider installing itself; I would have expected it to be the other way round. Looking at the pictures doesn't begin to convey how small and delicate-looking the M.2 device is -- I felt as though I was working with mittens on while installing and securing it with that tiny post/screw without removing the graphics card blocking full access. As for the tests, everything seems as I would expect from reading published benchmarks except for the 4KiB Q=1 tests which didn't show any sort of stunning improvement unlike the Sequential Read - sometimes not even twice as fast. Don't know if there is any fine tuning to be done or if it is even possible but there is no denying that some operations are stunningly fast with the newer technology. You pays your money and you takes your chances, I guess... 250gB 840EVO with SATA III interface: Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 545.582 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 512.766 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 318.592 MB/s [ 77781.3 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 301.835 MB/s [ 73690.2 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 511.724 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 487.336 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 36.686 MB/s [ 8956.5 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 96.140 MB/s [ 23471.7 IOPS] Test : 100 MiB [C: 48.4% (106.8/220.8 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/12/15 21:06:58 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) 500gB 960EVO with M.2 PCI interface: Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 2707.609 MB/s Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1795.993 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 640.562 MB/s [156387.2 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 561.352 MB/s [137048.8 IOPS] Sequential Read (T= 1) : 1283.964 MB/s Sequential Write (T= 1) : 1759.944 MB/s Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 51.039 MB/s [ 12460.7 IOPS] Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 214.907 MB/s [ 52467.5 IOPS] Test : 100 MiB [C: 22.2% (103.3/465.8 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec] Date : 2016/12/20 10:21:48 OS : Windows 10 Professional [10.0 Build 10586] (x64) The test softwa ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 5.2.0 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- * MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s] * KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes Your sequential is probably limited by Intel architecture choices. The connector could allow 4*995 MB/sec, while the choice of buffering eats into the efficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2 "Computer bus interfaces provided through the M.2 connector are PCI Express 3.0 (up to four lanes)" http://www.plxtech.com/files/pdf/tec...yload_Size.pdf "Intel desktop chipsets support at most a 64-byte maximum payload while Intel server chipsets support at most a 128-byte maximum payload. The primary reason for this is to match the cache line size for snooping on the front side bus." It would be interesting to see what it would do on a different architecture. Maybe when Zen comes out, there will be another kick at the can. ******* As for the 4K random, it's the mismatch between the block size of flash, and the 4K size choice, which causes a problem. The drive has to work extra hard inside, dealing with fragmentation. You're never going to see "sequential equals random" unless Flash is redesigned. And the industry just doesn't think that way... Flash chips are designed for capacity, and nothing else. It's up to the (M.2) controller designer, to make the best of a bad situation. And you cannot "hide it with a write cache" unless the write cache is the same size as the flash. ******* Still, those are very nice numbers. Too bad Windows NTFS cannot handle more than around 4500 files per second in a typical situation. The OS has been a bottleneck for some time. We only get the true speed of things like SSDs, in benchmarks. I got one exaggerated result in Linux a few months ago, by doing CreateFile on a TMPFS file system. And I could create 186,000 small files per second on it. I'm still trying to figure out a way to match that on Windows. And this is one reason I cannot recommend RAMdisks to people, as the bottleneck spoils the fun. An SSD is cheaper and just as effective. What would it take to fix the bottlenecks in Windows (there is more than one) ? I don't think anyone at Microsoft cares. If they cannot fix Windows Update, what else can't they fix ? :-) Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
Thanks for an informative posting.
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 09:36:44 -0500, John McGaw wrote: 500gB Samsung 960EVO |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
On 12/25/2016 11:51 AM, Paul wrote:
If they cannot fix Windows Update, what else can't they fix ? :-) Paul What problem are you having with updates? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
.. wrote:
On 12/25/2016 11:51 AM, Paul wrote: If they cannot fix Windows Update, what else can't they fix ? :-) Paul What problem are you having with updates? You have got to be joking. You've never hear of "wuauserv, wuaueng, 100% CPU" ? Or thousands of corporate machines that have run out of RAM, while a single CPU core is running 100% ? This is all the work of Windows Update, the misery maker... Broken OSes: WinXP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Win10 (recent find) WinXP (no fix, bandaid available) Vista (no fix, bandaid available, much misery) Win7 (a couple KBs help, still may need bandaid) Win8 (a couple KBs help (not the same KB numbers), still may need bandaid) Win10 (I used Windows Update reset to fix it, it would not stop looping on its own. May not be the same issue.) Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
On 12/25/2016 1:36 PM, Paul wrote:
. wrote: On 12/25/2016 11:51 AM, Paul wrote: If they cannot fix Windows Update, what else can't they fix ? :-) Paul What problem are you having with updates? You have got to be joking. You've never hear of "wuauserv, wuaueng, 100% CPU" ? Or thousands of corporate machines that have run out of RAM, while a single CPU core is running 100% ? Yes, have heard of them (a while back) but I've always found solutions or workarounds This is all the work of Windows Update, the misery maker... Broken OSes: WinXP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Win10 (recent find) WinXP (no fix, bandaid available) Vista (no fix, bandaid available, much misery) Win7 (a couple KBs help, still may need bandaid) Win8 (a couple KBs help (not the same KB numbers), still may need bandaid) Win10 (I used Windows Update reset to fix it, it would not stop looping on its own. May not be the same issue.) Paul Those are all pretty indistinct descriptions. I haven't used Vista or 8 and the 10 test-bed has been non problematic), but haven't any lasting or other than fleeting issues with manual updates (except for 10, I don't do automatic nor immediate updates the moment they're available) on either XP (no longer used) or 7. (I'm retired and haven't used server software in the last decade) But to reiterate, what problems (if any) are YOU currently experiencing with 7? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
.. wrote:
But to reiterate, what problems (if any) are YOU currently experiencing with 7? Go to Windows update after Patch Tuesday. Click the button to cause Windows Update to deliver a list of updates (security/optional lists). How long does it take to come back ? 24 hours ? More than 24 hours ? What is your CPU utilization during those 24 hours ? Is one CPU core railed to 100% ? Do you see a SVCHOST doing it ? When you use Process Explorer from Sysinternals.com, is wuauserv/wuaueng the guilty party ? And so on... I deal with helping people on a daily basis with this, and it's a PITA. They expect answers, I can help a bit with some of it, but with OSes like Vista, it's almost impossible to give them a working Windows Update session. An individual here, works out the "bandaid" after every Patch Tuesday. He's stopped doing Vista. http://wu.krelay.de/en/ I keep Windows Update turned off on purpose, so my machines here will not have a SVCHOST running off the rails all day long. When I need to patch, I use MBSA 2.3, see what security patches are needed, download them from catalog.update.microsoft.com and so on. I spent about 20 hours in September patching things to where I wanted them, all by hand. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Upgraded From SATA to M.2 SSD - Comparisons
On 12/25/2016 2:35 PM, Paul wrote:
. wrote: But to reiterate, what problems (if any) are YOU currently experiencing with 7? Go to Windows update after Patch Tuesday. Click the button to cause Windows Update to deliver a list of updates (security/optional lists). How long does it take to come back ? 24 hours ? More than 24 hours ? What is your CPU utilization during those 24 hours ? Is one CPU core railed to 100% ? Do you see a SVCHOST doing it ? When you use Process Explorer from Sysinternals.com, is wuauserv/wuaueng the guilty party ? And so on... Old issue, figured out long ago. My request for updates response is about 3 minutes since I fixed the last problem that was causing hours of delay combined with high single core utilization on this particular, old q6600 quad. I HAVE the fix for what you're describing (your below link actually covers it as well) and most recently, last month, provided it to a friend which also corrected for him an issue I once had. It is my opinion that MS is intentionally providing these obstacles so as to get users to migrate to 10, which is very much inline with previous practices they've employed. I've never used any of the OS I mentioned for good reason and is among the advice, such as never turn on AU, I've offered to others. I deal with helping people on a daily basis with this, and it's a PITA. They expect answers, I can help a bit with some of it, but with OSes like Vista, it's almost impossible to give them a working Windows Update session. An individual here, works out the "bandaid" after every Patch Tuesday. He's stopped doing Vista. http://wu.krelay.de/en/ I keep Windows Update turned off on purpose, so my machines here will not have a SVCHOST running off the rails all day long. When I need to patch, I use MBSA 2.3, see what security patches are needed, download them from catalog.update.microsoft.com and so on. I spent about 20 hours in September patching things to where I wanted them, all by hand. Paul My bet would be that if one successfully follows the advice on the aforementioned link, wrt7, lengthy waits for updates wouldn't be a problem as they aren't for me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Upgraded HD from IDE to SATA, removed old HD, but DVD/CD drive doesnot read | byrocat[_2_] | Storage (alternative) | 7 | January 28th 11 10:42 PM |
PC Comparisons | Chris Beckett | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | December 4th 05 08:53 PM |
Real-world comparisons between SATA 150 and SATA 300 | Odie Ferrous | Storage (alternative) | 13 | July 4th 05 07:01 PM |
AMD 64 comparisons | Die Spammer !!! | Asus Motherboards | 1 | June 3rd 04 04:59 AM |
CPU comparisons | General | 2 | April 6th 04 05:23 AM |