09-19-2017 04:32 PM - last edited on 03-05-2024 06:21 PM by ROGBot
09-21-2017 01:10 AM
Korth wrote:
Again, different hardware provides different results. That benchmark was run on a 1TB Samsung 960 NVMe and an ASRock Z270 Extreme4 motherboard. Not an ASUS X399 Zenith Extreme motherboard. Different chipset, different architecture, different design, different implementation, different priorities, different performances, different tradeoffs, different bottlenecks.
Also remember that CrystalDiskMark is a synthetic measure. It's not profoundly meaningful (accurate) in itself, it's only meaningful as a reference comparable to other measures.
09-21-2017 06:17 AM
ROGFanboy wrote:
So you're telling me that a 600 euro motherboard cuts NVMe performance in half? With all due respect, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. I expect nothing but top performance, especially from a chip and motherboard like this. I am willing to compromise some performance, sure, but not over 50%. Outrageous.
Is there any other way I can truly test the performance of my 960 Evo? I figured CrystalDiskMark is a solid indication, but if you say it's not, then it's probably a good idea to test it in a different way? 🙂
Thanks!
EDIT: I installed Samsung NVM Express Driver 2.2 and got a performance improvement. Still not even remotely close to what it's supposed to be.
EDIT 2: Sorry! The performance increase was probably just a coincidence. The default Windows drivers are still installed somehow.
I am completely lost here.
09-21-2017 10:29 AM
Ljugtomten wrote:
Have a look in Device Manager in the category for Storage Controllers and not the individual disks and you should see "Samsung NVMe Controller".
It is listed twice for me, have a 960 Pro and a 960 Evo.
09-21-2017 12:31 PM
11-14-2017 12:09 PM
09-20-2017 02:23 PM
IvoSilva wrote:
Your EVO seems to be the boot/OS drive (C:\) Then it would be normal for it not to achieve it's maximum performance since it it serving as the OS drive and will never achieve its peak performance because of it.
Anyone wanting the nvme max performance must use it as a standalone drive unrelated to OS and make sure it is cooled appropriately in order to avoid thermal throttling.
09-20-2017 01:08 AM
Korth wrote:
Actually looks like not just two different SSD drives, but two entirely different SSD models, based off those numbers.
Which TR4 proc and how much RAM on that X399?
Which laptop model (which chipset, CPU, RAM)?
What other hardware (and other drives) plugged into those systems?
What other software is running (why is desktop consuming 19% resources vs laptop consuming 7% resources)?
Are you running any drive-specific firmware or software like RAM Cache, RAM Disk, RAPID/Magician?
I wonder if (Windows) chipset drivers can produce such significant differences. People say the AMD drivers are still imperfect but those numbers (if on the same SSD hardware) just seem too divergent to blame entirely on drivers.
09-20-2017 04:26 AM
09-20-2017 05:21 AM
Korth wrote:
"Yes they are different model drives". Answers your question right there. You'd get essentially identical benchmarks - though reversed - if you swapped the NVMe drives between your machines.
Just because they're both made by Samsung and both 1TB capacity and even both NVMe-capable doesn't mean they're the same machine. Samsung makes lots of different (and always changing, always improving) 1TB SSDs.
A Ford Mustang and a Ford Escort are different machines with different performances. Even though both are made by Ford and both made to be driven on the same roads with the same speed limits.
01-27-2022 11:15 AM