'Laptops w. Intel Series 5 chipset can not take full advantage of fast SSDs'

*** Update: there are two tweaks to handle this issue:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...rformance-intel-series-5-stamatisx-tweak.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...ssd-performance-intel-series-5-jjb-tweak.html

The issue is summarized here:
http://www.storagereview.com/how_improve_low_ssd_performance_intel_series_5_chipset_environments ***

According to benchmarks run by several members it seems that laptops with Intel HM55 and PM55 can not take full advantage of fast SSDs. These chipsets are very common in modern notebooks. The performance hit is especially visible in 4K random read and write performance.

The problems seem to be caused by an agressive implementation of power saving features, as pointed out by tilleroftheearth in this post.

If you have this chipset in your notebook and a fast SSD, please post CrystalDiskMark 3.0 results here. Update for comparison, please post only 50MB test size, 3 runs, 4K results.

Here's a CrystalDiskMark result of Corsair Force 120 on HM55 chipset by member KolosoK:


Here's what the Force 120 performs on a different system:

(source)

Here's a AS-SSD result by KolosoK of his Corsair Force.


Here's what a Corsair Force is capable of:


Here's one by tilleroftheearth: Patriot Inferno (sandforce)


And a normal performing Sandforce:


Here are more threads with the same topic:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/asu...-g2-160gb-g73jh-why-sluggish-performance.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...2379-my-patriot-inferno-ssd-performs-bad.html

 

This might be specific to certain SSDs, in my case for example it isn't true. Laptop in sig.

 

Yup. If I read up on this before purchasing my SSD, I may have just gone with a Momentus XT instead. However, the SSD was technically a gift from my family, and it did improve my loading times (both Windows and gaming) tremendously, so I'm happy with my Corsair Force 120gb. I just wish they didn't spend so much on something that will not perform up to full spec on my machine. Not the drive's fault.

EDIT: Phil, it seems that the drive is not the OS drive in the benchmarks you posted - this might skew test results a little bit. The other benchmark probably used the drive while it was empty (confirmed: look at the screenshot - 0/112GB used).

 

Your performance does look a bit better but still your the 4K random performance is 20% lower than mine. Your 4K random write is about 50% lower.

This is my C300 64GB on a Intel GS45 laptop:

Yeah may be true but nonetheless, Sandforce SSDs should get around 20MB/sec 4K random read, while the capped ones get about 12-14 MB/sec.

 

Wrong drive, Phil The "normal" one is the OCZ Vertex 2

EDIT: Ah, never mind, you just said it was a "normal" performing one, not the exact drive :s

 

Thanks Phil for dedicating a new thread for this issue.

---Nvidia chipset-------Intel PM55 chipset--


This is the same SSD and you can see its performance on two different chipsets
The problem is obvious on the PM55 chipset
Laptop: Alienware M17x-R2

 

I'd like to see some comparisons with intel drives.

You'd hope intel's ssds would be compatible with their own chipset

 

Stamatisx' results right above your post are from an Intel X25-E.

Seems like Intel chipsets HM55 PM55 can't take full advantage of the Intel SSD.

 

Noooooo!!!! *goes on a long rant and cursing streak*

Angry geek is angry!

Mr. Mysterious

 

Here's a Vertex 2 result by rankinging.



Laptop: Toshiba X505-Q885.
Chipset: PM55

4K random speeds are limited like expected. The sequential speeds are limited too. Something else going on.