Jump to content


Photo

How come my 840 EVO is slower than Vertex 3?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 blue_heart71

blue_heart71

    Member

  • Member
  • 296 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 10:14 PM

Hi everyone,

 

I bought 500gb Samsung 840 EVO to replace my 120gb OCZ Vertex 3 for my Sony laptop with sata2 interface.

 

Benchmark wise, the EVO is faster in most areas while in real life the OCZ is faster.

The EVO takes 23 second from pushing the power button until the login screen while the OCZ takes 14 second with windows 7 pro 64 bit.

 

I formatted my EVO as NTFS, 4096b sector size, and then cloned the 1 partitioned OCZ to the 1 partition EVO using EASEUS program, which worked perfectly however, when running AS SSD benchmark I got the 112455 k bad message under the iastora and had to run another program called Mini Tool Partition Wizard which got it fixed.

 

With the EVO I have rapid on, which gives superior benchmark number but noticed zero improvement in real life. Turning rapid on or off makes no real life difference at least for me.

 

I can't figure out and need your help for why my EVO is slower than my OCZ for windows start up time and about little bit slower or same speed with other programs.

 

Benchmarks are attached. The first set is the Samsung while the second is the OCZ

 

Thank you

 

Attached Files


#2 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:25 AM

This is part of the reason why I prefer to not clone the drive and recommend a clean install. It's a PITA yes, but you often end up with better results. It's hard to say exactly why you may not be getting the performance you expected, but remember, the Vertex 3 wasn't a bad drive really. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#3 blue_heart71

blue_heart71

    Member

  • Member
  • 296 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 07:32 PM

I agree with you. The Vertex is a very good drive. I read somewhere else too after posting here that cloning could be the reason but again, the benchmarks are higher with the EVO but its the real life speed that looks slower and in fact twice as slow during windows start up.

The reason I am avoiding fresh install because I had an issue with one of the Sony driver that took me a long time to fix it and I forgot what I did to get it fixed. Additionally, I have several software purchased that I have to reinstall and validate the purchase and can't remember where I saved the keys. including Creative cloud with monthly subscription, and many other photo editing software, M$ office...etc


#4 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,540 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 01:24 AM

Your performance issues sound like a sector alignment issue or something...


#5 Valleyforge

Valleyforge

    Member

  • Member
  • 134 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 03:33 AM

It's something to do with Sandforce drives.  I have an ancient Kingston V+200 that's Sandforce, and it is the fastest "feeling" drive, even compared to the latest Samsung drives.

 

I know, it makes no sense, but that's the way it is.


Laptop: Dell inspiron E7440, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 mSATA, Win7 Pro
Workstation: i5-4690K, Z97I-Plus, H100i, Obsidian 250D, 480GB Crucial M500, 1TB WD Black, Win8.1 Pro, Hyper-V

NAS: Asustor AS-604T, 3GB RAM, 180GB Intel Pro 1500 & 2x4TB HGST NAS

HTPC:Intel NUC D54250WYK, 4GB, 64GB Crucial M4 mSATA, Win7 Pro

HTPC 2:Intel NUC DN2820, 4GB, 64GB Crucial M4 mSATA, Win7 Pro


 

#6 blue_heart71

blue_heart71

    Member

  • Member
  • 296 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 05:20 AM

Continuum, I had the alignment issue and fixed it with the mini tool partition wizard. I am not sure if the issue completely disappeared but since the block size turned into green color under iastora in the AS SSD benchmark I assumed it is fixed.

 

If erasing my drive and clone it again would solve the problem then I don't mind to do it. I am not expecting or even looking to improve my benchmark numbers since my interface is sata2, which the numbers from EVO look good for that, but what I am concerned about the real world speed that I am looking to improve.


#7 blue_heart71

blue_heart71

    Member

  • Member
  • 296 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 05:26 AM

Valleyforge. Its like a magic. The 120GB drive with 8gb page file and 11gb free left on the drive is faster than 500gb drive + rapid tech (whether on or off) + 8gb page file.

Although completely hate it but I may end up fresh installing just to eliminate the cloning possibility that making the drive slow and then install as much as software that I currently use and see how it feels. If nothing changed then I will return the EVO.


#8 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,540 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 05:29 PM

Hmm, just noticed you're on a SATA 3Gbps controller... wonder how big a factor that is.


#9 blue_heart71

blue_heart71

    Member

  • Member
  • 296 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 08:56 PM

Continuum, the benchmark numbers should lower than 6Gbps, which is the case with me and I could care less about those numbers. It puzzles me how it is slower than the Vertex 3 in real world. I am going to disable rapid and remover the overprovision and see if that helps, otherwise, will go ahead and format and do clear install. If nothing improved then I am returning it.

 

As Valleyforge said, it probably has to do with Sandforce drives

 

Any recommendation for fastest Sandforce based drive the 500gb for less than $300?


#10 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,207 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 02:01 PM

I think I'd stay away from SandForce until Seagate lets us know what their plans are for the controllers. 


Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#11 blue_heart71

blue_heart71

    Member

  • Member
  • 296 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 07:59 PM

Thank you Brian.

 

I re-cloned the driver using mini tool partition and the EVO was as fast as the Vertex 3. So I installed Samsung Magician and deactivated indexing, prefetch, zero page file and turned rapid on and the drive became slower, although faster than my first cloning attempt but slower than before installing Samsung Magician. I reverted back all these enhancements and uninstalled Samsung Magician but nothing changed.

 

Not sure if its worth turning overprovision on. The only time I used the laptop heavily is when working on Photoshop and other photo editing programs where I run files at least 300mb


#12 [ETA]MrSpadge

[ETA]MrSpadge

    Member

  • Member
  • 737 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 03:13 PM

It could well be that it takes some time to rebuild the prefetch data, i.e. so that Win knows what you're frequently accessing. I'm not a big fan of these "tweaks".. it could well be that they made your OS feel slow.

 

MrS





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users