Samsung 960 Evo Speeds

Discussion in 'Sager and Clevo' started by whitedragon551, Apr 24, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Im curious what kind of speeds I should be seeing? I benchmarked my 960 Evo after installing the NVMe drivers from Samsung and the speeds seem off. I used Crystal Disk Mark v5.2.1 x64 Particularly the read speed on the first test.

    Im also pretty sure Trim should be enabled, but isnt a listed feature.

    Capture.PNG
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
  2. Prostar Computer

    Prostar Computer Company Representative

    Reputations:
    1,257
    Messages:
    7,429
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Trophy Points:
    331
    Your seq write is on the slow-ish side, but are you noticing any performance issues during normal use?

    Open an elevated command prompt and type: fsutil behavior query disabledeletenotify

    If you get a "=0", that means Trim is enabled (it's enabled by default). A "=1" means it's disabled.
     
  3. Meaker@Sager

    Meaker@Sager Company Representative

    Reputations:
    8,358
    Messages:
    52,784
    Likes Received:
    15,171
    Trophy Points:
    931
    It's almost as if the drive is not using SLC cell acceleration any more.
     
  4. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I havent noticed any performance issues per se. However, I have noticed my system isnt any faster than my old Sager NP8235 with an Intel SSD using SATA.

    It is enabled even though CrystalDisk shows that it is not.

    Can you elaborate on this? How would I test or confirm this? Should I create a RMA/warranty claim for the SSD?
     
  5. Prostar Computer

    Prostar Computer Company Representative

    Reputations:
    1,257
    Messages:
    7,429
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Trophy Points:
    331
    While, on paper, your current Samsung drive is much faster than the SATA drive, I'm not sure of how much of an appreciable difference there is in everyday tasks and gaming.

    It's omitting a lot of info in the "Features" field; that's normally where you'd see it, but it's not exactly counter-informative to what the command line showed you.

    You can try TRIMcheck, just to double confirm.
     
  6. Papusan

    Papusan JOKEBOOK's Sucks! Dont waste your $$$ on FILTHY

    Reputations:
    24,184
    Messages:
    24,298
    Likes Received:
    42,463
    Trophy Points:
    931
  7. Johnksss

    Johnksss .

    Reputations:
    10,584
    Messages:
    18,991
    Likes Received:
    11,379
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Something along the lines of what i'm getting with mine....
    [​IMG]
     
    Papusan likes this.
  8. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    The same review site has CrystalDiskMark benchmarks as well. Mine arent even close. Their benchmark on the test system below:

    960evo-250gb-cdm.jpg
     
  9. Stooj

    Stooj Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    177
    Messages:
    825
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Normally that kind of write discrepancy occurs when caching/buffereing is set incorrectly (or disabled for some reason, causing every write to be checked).

    The Tomshardware review for the 250GB model also has a very interesting write graph over time:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-960-evo-nvme-ssd-review,4802-4.html

    Seems to suggest that the large majority of the performance actually comes from the TurboWrite buffer which is just too small on the 250GB model for longer sustained writes.
     
  10. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    The benchmark from post #8 is of the 250Gb version, which is what I have and there is still a very large discrepancy for the same test.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page