blue_heart71

Member
  • Content Count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About blue_heart71

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    NY
  1. blue_heart71

    How come my 840 EVO is slower than Vertex 3?

    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
  2. blue_heart71

    How come my 840 EVO is slower than Vertex 3?

    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?
  3. blue_heart71

    How come my 840 EVO is slower than Vertex 3?

    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.
  4. blue_heart71

    How come my 840 EVO is slower than Vertex 3?

    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.
  5. blue_heart71

    How come my 840 EVO is slower than Vertex 3?

    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
  6. 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
  7. blue_heart71

    Corsair Voyager USB flash 16gb score

    I have a done a test between my Corsair USB flash, hitachi 7200rpm, and Fujitsu 4200 drive, where I saved a photoshop file of 1.88gb from my Fujitsu to Corsair and it took the following times from the moment I hit ctrl+v till the window of copying disappeared (NOD32 anit virus was running) (OS windows Vista home premium) (4gb of Corsair was used as boostready) Fujitsu to Corsair: 4m25s Hitachi to Corsair: 4m34s (I think the extra 9 seconds cane after using the Corsair for reading 2 times and writing for the second time, seems it got tired ) fujitsu to Hitachi: 1m4s Corsair to Hitachi: 1m5s Corsair to Fujitsu: 1m10s Hitachi to Fujitsu: 1m8s
  8. blue_heart71

    Low burst rate with Hitachi 7200rpm notebook drive

    Thanks everyone, I have run Sisoft and Atto and got wierd result. As you can see from the attached images, the Hitachi has higher reading score than the Fujitsu while Fujitsu has higher writing degree and its write score is higher than its reading score, so I am confused. However, the way I am analyzing HDtune's benchmark (burst speed), is that it measures both the reading and writing speed and posts the average, and it could be true for the HDtach as well, but this is just an assumption. Can some sheds some light on Atto's beanchmark and how to read the score? The images will reveal what I am analyzing, I am attaching the new benchmark in addition to the old benchmarks and a separate link with every image just in case the image is not showing in the message So what do you think? http://www.pbase.com/shg2/image/78212705 http://www.pbase.com/shg2/image/78211457 http://www.pbase.com/shg2/image/78110299 http://www.pbase.com/shg2/image/78110272
  9. blue_heart71

    Low burst rate with Hitachi 7200rpm notebook drive

    Thanks Frank, wise advice here is a link to the images, there are the first 2 photos in the gallery http://www.pbase.com/shg2/personal_and_others_retouching
  10. blue_heart71

    Corsair Voyager USB flash 16gb score

    Dont think mine is the GT one, however, this is where I bought it from http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820233042
  11. Just got my Corsair 16gb USB flash drive and tested it with HDtach and this is what I got: Burst read: 34mb/s Average read: 32.4mb/s Access time: 1.2ms CPU util. 12% Are those numbers impressive for USB flash drive specially the average read?
  12. blue_heart71

    Low burst rate with Hitachi 7200rpm notebook drive

    As far as I know, the burst speed will affect the speed of transferring the data from harddrive's cash to the bus, so according to HDtune, instead of moving the data between the interface of the drive and the bus is 50mb/s instead of the normal 100mb and this will affect the performance to some extent although I am not sure how much. However, I am not sure how reliable is HDtune, as I only found it being used by notebookforum.com users. Any idea about this program?
  13. blue_heart71

    Low burst rate with Hitachi 7200rpm notebook drive

    I just got an email from Hitachi as an aswer for my question for them that the feature tool is reading both SATA drives as UDMA 5, and this is what Hitachi answered me: "If Feature Tool is reporting both drives running in UDMA mode 5, then your BIOS is set to a compatibility mode so the machine thinks the drives are really IDE drives. Because the BIOS is reporting the drives as IDE, Feature Tool will not allow you to change SATA settings" I think I need to contact Fujitsu to verify what Hitachi is saying Will keep you updated
  14. blue_heart71

    Low burst rate with Hitachi 7200rpm notebook drive

    I just searched for the hdparm, it is Linux program and wont work on Vista However, I am attaching screen shoots from both HDtune and HDtach for both drives (Hitachi 7200 and Fujitsu 4200 rpm) In the benchmarks below, notics the low vurst rate of the Hitachi This is HDtune's score for both drives This is HDtach's score for both drives
  15. blue_heart71

    Low burst rate with Hitachi 7200rpm notebook drive

    Thanks for your feedback Write cache is enabled as per hdtune and feature tools by Hitachi. I am not sure that I got you properly about your question regarding drive configuration. Is there a program called hdparm -i that I can doanload and install to get that info? Do you have a link for that program? There is no other issue beside the low burst rate. The average transfer rate is 38mb/s, and access time is 15ms. I forgot to add that I am using Windows Vista home premium 32 bit