ReadSpeed results for 4 SSDs (3 types)

  • 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.
  • Larger Font Styles
    Guest:

    Just a quick heads-up that I've implemented larger font variants of our forum's light and dark page styles. You can select the style of your choice by scrolling to the footer of any page here. This might be more comfortable (it is for me) for those with high-resolution displays where the standard fonts, while permitting a lot of text to fit on the screen, might be uncomfortably small.

    (You can permanently dismiss this notification with the “X” at the upper right.)

    /Steve.

inspapadakis

Member
Jan 31, 2021
7
0
4 drives:
1) Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1TB
2) KINGSTON SA400S37240G (240G)

3) identical kingston (another drive)
4) INTEL X25-M SSDSA2M080G2GC (80G) (can do max SATA II - 3Gbps, all others can do SATA III - 6Gbps)

1) Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1TB

First run:
Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  1.0TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1TB       515.6   514.1   525.0   527.5   525.4
Second+ run(s):
Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  1.0TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1TB       532.0   532.2   543.4   543.4   543.4

2) first drive KINGSTON SA400S37240G (240G)
first run:

Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  240GB KINGSTON SA400S37240G         262.8   386.6   342.9   457.7   442.4
second run:
Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  240GB KINGSTON SA400S37240G         265.2   454.3   370.3   517.1   459.0

3) second drive KINGSTON SA400S37240G (240G)
first run:

Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  240GB KINGSTON SA400S37240G         228.5   303.7   375.5   443.5   291.3
second run:
Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  240GB KINGSTON SA400S37240G         229.3   318.3   404.8   493.8   291.3

4) INTEL X25-M SSDSA2M080G2GC (80G) (can do max sata2)
first run:
Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81   80GB INTEL SSDSA2M080G2GC          268.3   274.6   274.6   274.6   274.6
second run:
Code:
Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81   80GB INTEL SSDSA2M080G2GC          268.2   274.6   274.6   274.6   274.6
(yeah this baby is still pretty godly)


I'm attaching the raw RS000.TXT to RS034.TXT files of the results, for those who wants all the details, like rs /1, /2, /3, /4, /ident, /verbose
 

Attachments

  • txts_readspeed_4_ssds.zip
    61.8 KB · Views: 27

inspapadakis

Member
Jan 31, 2021
7
0
I should probably mention that the 840 EVO runs EXT0DB6Q Firmware (the one that does the cell refreshes in the background) so that's why it's fast:
After initially launching in 2013 to great fanfare as an excellent, strong-performing low-cost drive, over the long run performance regressions began to occur in deployed drives that saw the read performance of old data significantly drop. At the heart of the issue was the drive’s relatively uncommon 19nm TLC NAND, which given the combination of small feature size and tighter requirements of TLC, eventually resulted in the drive having to slow down and re-read cells to properly read the charge-decayed cells.
quote from: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9196/samsung-releases-second-840-evo-fix