3 x Crucial CT2000BX500SSD1 - very impressive results

  • Release Candidate 6
    Guest:
    We are at a “proposed final” true release candidate with nothing known remaining to be changed or fixed. For the full story, please see this page in the "Pre-Release Announcements & Feedback" forum.
    /Steve.
  • Be sure to checkout “Tips & Tricks”
    Dear Guest Visitor → Once you register and log-in:

    This forum does not automatically send notices of new content. So if, for example, you would like to be notified by mail when Steve posts an update to his blog (or of any other specific activity anywhere else), you need to tell the system what to “Watch” for you. Please checkout the “Tips & Tricks” page for details about that... and other tips!

    /Steve.

ccsjnw

New member
Jan 6, 2021
1
0
I'm seeing very impressive results for my traditional SSD drives.
My main system is an ASUS TUF B450M-PLUS (BIOS 2409 - 12 Dec 2020) with AMD Ryzen 3700X processor.

Not able to benchmark my OS drive yet, as it's a NVMe native drive (Samsung 970 EVO Plus 500GB):
All drives were purchased in August 2020.

Code:
   NOTE: This system contains an NVMe controller which is not yet supported.
         The addition of full NVMe support =IS= on our development roadmap.

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  2.0TB CT2000BX500SSD1               540.6   543.7   545.0   545.3   545.7
 82  2.0TB CT2000BX500SSD1               544.9   545.7   545.6   544.7   545.6
 83  2.0TB CT2000BX500SSD1               544.0   544.9   545.3   545.4   545.0

                  Benchmarked: Wednesday, 2021-01-06 at 15:53
 
Hi, welcome to the forums! And thanks for posting! :)

Drives looking healthy, indeed!

Are they mostly empty at this stage? In the Security Now podcast no. 800, Steve Gibson did a good explainer regarding the fact that where SSD drives have not had data written to an area, the drive knows there is no data there, so it just returns zeros without actually attempting to read the drive. So bear in mind that the results for the later parts of the drives may not yet reflect the actual read speeds?

Here's a link to the podcast if you're interested, jump to about 1hr 12 mins for the Readspeed section: