Sign in to follow this  
jmw

Adata 64GB S596 vs S599

Recommended Posts

My specs: GA-EX58-UD4P, i7-920, Radeon HD4850X2, 1GB x 3 Kingston HyperX, Windows 7 64bit Ultimate, Adata 64GB SSD (upgraded from S596 to S599)

I decided to upgrade my Adata S596 to an S599(w/Sandforce cntr), and use my S596(w/Jmicron cntr) in another machine. So I did a disk image with Acronis True Image 2010. And restored that image to the new S599. To my surprise it took about a minute longer to boot-up, and after I was booted the S599 drive was noticably slower. There is a fair amount of "lag" when I launch an application that was not there with my S596. So I wiped both drives right down to unallocated space. Re-initialized & formatted both drives using Acronis Disk Director 2011. Then restored the same image to both drives. Same story. The S599 with the Sandforce controller was slower to boot by about a minute. And I had a fair amount of lag when launching applications. But the S596 was just as fast as it has always been. It boots fast and executes my large apps fast.

Now, this is where it gets weird. When I benchmark the drives using Passmark 7 64bit version, the S599 is about 42% faster than the S596 which is what you'd expect.

So why does my new drive (the S599) take so much longer to boot-up, and have so much lag when executing applications, yet it finishes 42% faster than the S596 in the Benchmark?

I've played with the write cache settings, and nothing seems to change substantially.

Any ideas?

UPDATE 19 Nov 2010: HD Tune Pro 4.6 reports 416 damaged sectors on the S599. I am also experiencing inconsistent behavior along with minor data errors. So the drive has been returned for replacement. You should probably ignore all of my comments about the Adata 64GB S599 as these were based on what appears to be a defective drive.

UPDATE 30 Nov 2010: Just received my replacement S599. Same results as listed by me in this thread previously. Draw your own conclusions.

-jmw

Edited by jmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, hard to say exactly, but I'd start by cloning your old drive, rather than restoring from a backup. I've not done the latter operation before, but never seen any issues with a straight clone using TI 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, hard to say exactly, but I'd start by cloning your old drive, rather than restoring from a backup. I've not done the latter operation before, but never seen any issues with a straight clone using TI 2010.

Thanks. I'll give that a try after work tomorrow. You know, now that I have 2 of these drives I've been thinking about RAID 0. But I have a multi-boot system with three other operating systems. All 3 OS's set up for AHCI. And I don't think I can run both RAID 0 and AHCI. I think it has to be RAID/IDE. Unless I bought another controller. hmm. The thought of SSD RAID 0 is tempting. Nothing much faster than that, right? :blink:

UPDATE: I tried the cloning suggestion using TI 2010. My results were basically the same. I say basically because I think it booted 5 seconds faster vs the image restore boot-up time. I also still have the lag issue when launching an application from within windows 7. Aside from a total redo, I don't know what else I can try to resolve this. I don't think this is a drive problem, but I'm not 100% sure.

Has anyone else done a Cyrstaldiskmark on their Adata 64GB S599? I'd be interested in knowing your results.

Edited by jmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite new to SSD disks, but trust me i read tons of info these days, and what i found out is that almost all of the new generation Sandforce (1200) based disks perform very similar and offer very good performance. So based on that, your numbers are way off. Long story in short, the S596 which i have also its getting owned, or at same level with my WD1 green HD, when its about write speeds, or instaling games or programs. Also the read speeds on S599 are higher then the S596, overall is quite better unit. So yes your numbers are odd/low.

Maybe you should try clean install if you can.

Edited by ODD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite new to SSD disks, but trust me i read tons of info these days, and what i found out is that almost all of the new generation Sandforce (1200) based disks perform very similar and offer very good performance. So based on that, your numbers are way off. Long story in short, the S596 which i have also its getting owned, or at same level with my WD1 green HD, when its about write speeds, or instaling games or programs. Also the read speeds on S599 are higher then the S596, overall is quite better unit. So yes your numbers are odd/low.

Maybe you should try clean install if you can.

Thanks. I know that's good advice, but in my case it is easier said than done. Speed (the Sandforce) is why I upgraded in the first place. And my justification was that I wanted to upgrade my other computer with my old S596 which does not have an ssd boot drive. I wanted to keep it simple, and the thought of starting from scratch sends shivers down my spine. Because there is a lot of work in this boot drive including tons (Gigabytes) of updates from Microsoft for my OS and Office apps to name just a few. I also have Verizon wireless as my ISP, and that limits me to 5GB per month at roughly 1Mbps. So that takes a lot of time and GB just to update, which will shut off my internet access until the next billing cycle when I get 5 more GB. Currently I use up 45GB between my OS and primary applications of my total 64GB (which is really 55GB) SSD. I think I'll just live live with my mistake (which was to image my drive vs a total redo). But I appreciate your advice, and I know that it is very good advice.

FYI, I just ran Crystaldiskmark and got 185MBs as my fastest read score, and 65MBs as my best write score with my S599. Yeah, not very impressive for a Sandforce controller. Be nice if someone came out with an SSD drive optimizer. So people wouldn't have to redo from scratch to get the best performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I know that's good advice, but in my case it is easier said than done. Speed (the Sandforce) is why I upgraded in the first place. And my justification was that I wanted to upgrade my other computer with my old S596 which does not have an ssd boot drive. I wanted to keep it simple, and the thought of starting from scratch sends shivers down my spine. Because there is a lot of work in this boot drive including tons (Gigabytes) of updates from Microsoft for my OS and Office apps to name just a few. I also have Verizon wireless as my ISP, and that limits me to 5GB per month at roughly 1Mbps. So that takes a lot of time and GB just to update, which will shut off my internet access until the next billing cycle when I get 5 more GB. Currently I use up 45GB between my OS and primary applications of my total 64GB (which is really 55GB) SSD. I think I'll just live live with my mistake (which was to image my drive vs a total redo). But I appreciate your advice, and I know that it is very good advice.

FYI, I just ran Crystaldiskmark and got 185MBs as my fastest read score, and 65MBs as my best write score with my S599. Yeah, not very impressive for a Sandforce controller. Be nice if someone came out with an SSD drive optimizer. So people wouldn't have to redo from scratch to get the best performance.

Ah ok then, in all fairness listen to qasdfdsaq advice, because Sandforce based disks tend to fail when it comes to incompressible data, which is what CDM & AS-SSD report. Based on that, the score in Crystaldiskmark & AS-SSD will always be low,try ATTO or PC mark vantage, PC mark Vantage especially (as the best real world test)

BTW where i live there is no great choice of SSD disk available so i'm really interested in your experience going from S596, to S599 because i'm planing to do exactly the same. I will be (going from S596 to S599)as well knowing that the second one is the only Sandforce based disk where i live. So in short, can you do me a big favour (after you get it right) and try to install some serious program (Arhicad,Photoshop,Maya,PC Mark Vantage) or anything you got which is big enough to see the difference on both disk and report about how much time does they require to complete instaling the same program, speed/time increase? my S596 is so slow in that segment, even slower then HDD which makes me crazy so i want to swap it with S599 because it should be great for instaling big games/programs on paper, knowing all Sandforce drivers are great in wrte speeds.

Sorry to bother you but almost every test i saw for S599 show different results, and i don't know what to take as a correct test, thats why i'm interested in some real world testing. Thanks in advance :)

P.S. Do you have rev1 or 2? does it come with 3 years warranty and 3.5' bracket?

P.P.S Instal the new Intel storage driver -- http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intel%20raid.htm. Also you may wanna try even update your Bios as a last resort.

Edited by ODD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCQ? Give ATTO a go and see what the graphs look like. That or update your chipset/SATA drivers. And drive firmware if available.

ATTO locked me up solid during testing...and my computer NEVER locks up. Go figure. Maybe it had something to do with the filename being "bench32" and I am running a 64bit version of Windows??? Is there a 64bit version of ATTO?

My BIOS "f14n" is the latest and greatest for my GA-EX58-UD4P mb. And I was not able to find any firmware updates for the S599 drive. But there was for the S596, and I already updated that firmware some time ago.

However, I solved my boot-up time issue (being 1 minute longer) with the S599 vs the S596. I initialized the S599 in TI 2010 instead of Acronis DD 2011. Believe it or not, that did the trick. Once more, go figure. My application launch lag however, has stayed about the same...which is slower than it was on my S596. But I can live with it. It's not real bad, it just takes a few seconds longer to launch large applications than it did on my S596.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok then, in all fairness listen to qasdfdsaq advice, because Sandforce based disks tend to fail when it comes to incompressible data, which is what CDM & AS-SSD report. Based on that, the score in Crystaldiskmark & AS-SSD will always be low,try ATTO or PC mark vantage, PC mark Vantage especially (as the best real world test)

BTW where i live there is no great choice of SSD disk available so i'm really interested in your experience going from S596, to S599 because i'm planing to do exactly the same. I will be (going from S596 to S599)as well knowing that the second one is the only Sandforce based disk where i live. So in short, can you do me a big favour (after you get it right) and try to install some serious program (Arhicad,Photoshop,Maya,PC Mark Vantage) or anything you got which is big enough to see the difference on both disk and report about how much time does they require to complete instaling the same program, speed/time increase? my S596 is so slow in that segment, even slower then HDD which makes me crazy so i want to swap it with S599 because it should be great for instaling big games/programs on paper, knowing all Sandforce drivers are great in wrte speeds.

Sorry to bother you but almost every test i saw for S599 show different results, and i don't know what to take as a correct test, thats why i'm interested in some real world testing. Thanks in advance :)

P.S. Do you have rev1 or 2? does it come with 3 years warranty and 3.5' bracket?

P.P.S Instal the new Intel storage driver -- http://www.station-drivers.com/page/intel%20raid.htm. Also you may wanna try even update your Bios as a last resort.

I think I need to find a 64 bit version of atto. What I've got (bench32) locks up my PC during the tests. As for PC Mark Vantage...that thing is nearly 700MB to download. That would eat up a lot of my Verizon Wireless bandwidth of which I am limited to 5GB/mo. So I don't really want to do that. I used to have HD Tune Pro trial version. And I just tried to install it again, but it says that my trial period expired. Do you have any other suggestions for disk benchmarking my SSD drives (small downloads and 64bit compatible versions)?

Meanwhile take a look here: http://www.ssdreview.com/ssd-review/compare/a-data-s599-64gb-310/

You can find some real world test results for the S599. Do some SSD drive comparisons too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to a comparison I did between the two SSD drives using HD Tune Pro 4.6.

The result for the S596 is similar to mine, so that disk is ok for sure. But your score for the S599 is low, especially in write speeds. maybe try HD tach?

HD tune is not the best way to test an SSD, its more made for an HDD tests.

Edited by ODD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The result for the S596 is similar to mine, so that disk is ok for sure. But your score for the S599 is low, especially in write speeds. maybe try HD tach?

HD tune is not the best way to test an SSD, its more made for an HDD tests.

Thanks, I will try that on my replacement drive. The S599 really acted strange on my machine (see my OP for specs) whereas the S596 behaved consistently. By strange, I mean my boot-up times would vary. One time it would boot quickly, leading me to believe all was well. Then the next time it would take as long as a minute longer to boot-up. Then it would boot-up fast, and then slow again, maybe two times down the road. Then I would get errors in my Outlook database. App launch times would vary. The HD tune results were never consistent. The reads & writes would always vary...drastically sometimes. HD Tune 4.6 also reported 416 bad/damaged sectors. All the time I was testing the S596 along side and as I stated previously, it behaved consistently under the same conditions.

I spent a lot of time troubleshooting this, and I've concluded that I am going to have it replaced. I'll report back when I get the replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I will try that on my replacement drive. The S599 really acted strange on my machine (see my OP for specs) whereas the S596 behaved consistently. By strange, I mean my boot-up times would vary. One time it would boot quickly, leading me to believe all was well. Then the next time it would take as long as a minute longer to boot-up. Then it would boot-up fast, and then slow again, maybe two times down the road. Then I would get errors in my Outlook database. App launch times would vary. The HD tune results were never consistent. The reads & writes would always vary...drastically sometimes. HD Tune 4.6 also reported 416 bad/damaged sectors. All the time I was testing the S596 along side and as I stated previously, it behaved consistently under the same conditions.

I spent a lot of time troubleshooting this, and I've concluded that I am going to have it replaced. I'll report back when I get the replacement.

Oh sorry to hear that man, strange thing is that you me and 3 more friends of mine got S596 which should be quite lower quality, got no problems or anything with it. The Jmicron model (S596) holds it own vs S599-s Sandforce. The only issue is the very slow write speeds which are totally anoying for me. Please, do report when you get the new S599 i want to compare some results and get to know is it worth to replace it with, because i can get the S599 for as cheap as 70 euros, sure i can compare reviews scores but they are all different in terms of results so in short i dunno which test to take as a correct.

Thanks in advance :)

P.S. For how much u get the S599?

Edited by ODD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry to hear that man, strange thing is that you me and 3 more friends of mine got S596 which should be quite lower quality, got no problems or anything with it. The Jmicron model (S596) holds it own vs S599-s Sandforce. The only issue is the very slow write speeds which are totally anoying for me. Please, do report when you get the new S599 i want to compare some results and get to know is it worth to replace it with, because i can get the S599 for as cheap as 70 euros, sure i can compare reviews scores but they are all different in terms of results so in short i dunno which test to take as a correct.

Thanks in advance :)

P.S. For how much u get the S599?

70 euros is a really good price. I paid $114 in the USA which is about 83 euros.

I hope the new drive will be the answer. I just sent the old S599 back yesterday. Could take a while. So check back in a week or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

70 euros is a really good price. I paid $114 in the USA which is about 83 euros.

I hope the new drive will be the answer. I just sent the old S599 back yesterday. Could take a while. So check back in a week or two.

No problem bro, hope u can get good unit :)

BTW do u have any installation/CD of some big program (PS, Autocad,Arhicad,Office, etc) to make a test of the time S596 need to complete the installation (measure the time) and later use it as a reference for S599 test? so we can compare the 2 models, Sandforce vs Jmicron. Its important to me because i got 7 pcs connected in network. The time required for installation is really important and essential for me. If you can do it i would be really really! grateful! :)

Thanks in advance!

Edited by ODD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem bro, hope u can get good unit :)

BTW do u have any installation/CD of some big program (PS, Autocad,Arhicad,Office, etc) to make a test of the time S596 need to complete the installation (measure the time) and later use it as a reference for S599 test? so we can compare the 2 models, Sandforce vs Jmicron. Its important to me because i got 7 pcs connected in network. The time required for installation is really important and essential for me. If you can do it i would be really really! grateful! :)

Thanks in advance!

No, sorry I don't. But results will vary from machine to machine as you should know. As an example, when installing AutoCAD, the S599 may turn out to be 30% faster than the S596 on MY computer. But on yours it may be different, say only 25% faster. When you consider the throughput variations of the differing hardware platforms...this really isn't a good way to benchmark hard drives. My source drive (with the AutoCAD DVD) may be slower throughput than yours. If there are cab files that need to be decompressed, my computer may be slower in processing. These will have an impact on the total time it takes to install a program. Only benchmarking software can give the most accurate comparison of HDD or SSD drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sorry I don't. But results will vary from machine to machine as you should know. As an example, when installing AutoCAD, the S599 may turn out to be 30% faster than the S596 on MY computer. But on yours it may be different, say only 25% faster. When you consider the throughput variations of the differing hardware platforms...this really isn't a good way to benchmark hard drives. My source drive (with the AutoCAD DVD) may be slower throughput than yours. If there are cab files that need to be decompressed, my computer may be slower in processing. These will have an impact on the total time it takes to install a program. Only benchmarking software can give the most accurate comparison of HDD or SSD drives.

Well your right i thought you can try on the same PC/OS just to have general idea but nevermind your right on some points, thanks anyway and report how does it perform when you get it! at least some ATTO benchmarks! :)

P.S. Do not make tests with CDM and AS-SSD on a Sandfroce based SSD (S599, or any other) its very hard on the disks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. Do not make tests with CDM and AS-SSD on a Sandfroce based SSD (S599, or any other) its very hard on the disks!

Did you try my link in post #9? Browse around the site. They show comparisons between the different benchmarking applications. This is a good example of how even benchmark software varies from one to another on the same machine. And if you ran those same programs on your computer they would be different from the posted results. So, who can we trust as being the most accurate testing application...when the results vary like this? What it boils down to is how it performs for you. Not how it performs for me. If I give you my test results, they will be based on my particular hardware. I can see from their test results (compared to mine) that having a SATA III controller vs my SATA II makes a significant difference with the S599.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you try my link in post #9? Browse around the site. They show comparisons between the different benchmarking applications. This is a good example of how even benchmark software varies from one to another on the same machine. And if you ran those same programs on your computer they would be different from the posted results. So, who can we trust as being the most accurate testing application...when the results vary like this? What it boils down to is how it performs for you. Not how it performs for me. If I give you my test results, they will be based on my particular hardware. I can see from their test results (compared to mine) that having a SATA III controller vs my SATA II makes a significant difference with the S599.

Sata III won't change a thing for a S599, for Raid0 or CrucialC300 yes it will.

P.S. Yes i tried the site but the firmware which they use is a bit old. I'm guessing that the model u get should come with the latest, thats why i was asking for some benchmarks to see the 4k write speed, and finally geta general idea does the S599 ships with 50K IOPS firmware. But nevermind your right that it won't be same even generally the results should be similar. Goodluck with your SSD's :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a 64-bit version of ATTO, nor is there any need for one. It doesn't do any "64-bit" stuff, nor interface with any drivers so whatever's happening isn't because of it being 32-bit. Sounds more like there's a driver/firmware bug somewhere - especially given you have lockups, inconsistent behaviour and data corruption. You might even have a faulty drive.

How about filling up all the free space on the drive with a large file, then checksum and verify it? For example create a RAR file of your Windows folder then do a verify test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sata III won't change a thing for a S599, for Raid0 or CrucialC300 yes it will.

You would not think so. Considering the S599 r/w speeds are within the capabilities of the SATA II controller. Yet the the test results when compared to mine showed that their test platform performed much better than mine...using the same test program. Assuming you are correct, then the only explanation I have is that it may be due to the defective drive. However, time will tell. Newegg has just received and accepted my S599, and is sending out the replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would not think so. Considering the S599 r/w speeds are within the capabilities of the SATA II controller. Yet the the test results when compared to mine showed that their test platform performed much better than mine...using the same test program. Assuming you are correct, then the only explanation I have is that it may be due to the defective drive. However, time will tell. Newegg has just received and accepted my S599, and is sending out the replacement.

I've registered just for this topic only. I have the same disks from A-Data, so did a friend of mine, and used it in a RAID 0 setup. The speeds are superb, but the realiability seems poor.

My first 2 drives had loads of reallocated sector counts which I found out because I had random BSOD's and unbootable disks, so I returned mine and got 2 new ones. I told my friend to test his drivers also. He had no BSOD's, but did had the same terrible reallocated sector count. So that are 4 drives which are crap.

My current drives are giving me BSOD's since a week or 2, I need to read the SMART values of those 2 soon (SMART does not work in RAID, but to lazy to remove them from my system :P ). So if those drives have the same problems, that would number 5 and 6...

So my advise to you is keep watching your SMART values and it would be nice if you could let me know how your drive is doing after a couple of weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've registered just for this topic only. I have the same disks from A-Data, so did a friend of mine, and used it in a RAID 0 setup. The speeds are superb, but the realiability seems poor.

My first 2 drives had loads of reallocated sector counts which I found out because I had random BSOD's and unbootable disks, so I returned mine and got 2 new ones. I told my friend to test his drivers also. He had no BSOD's, but did had the same terrible reallocated sector count. So that are 4 drives which are crap.

My current drives are giving me BSOD's since a week or 2, I need to read the SMART values of those 2 soon (SMART does not work in RAID, but to lazy to remove them from my system :P ). So if those drives have the same problems, that would number 5 and 6...

So my advise to you is keep watching your SMART values and it would be nice if you could let me know how your drive is doing after a couple of weeks.

Just received the new S599 from Newegg and this one has 320 bad sectors and behaves just as badly as my first one did. I am of the opinion that there is something seriously wrong with these drives. After I read of your experience, and then the experience that I have now had with 2 of them in a row... These things are shipping with bad sectors. Aren't these supposed to be new drives? My S596 didn't have any bad sectors on it. My first S599 had 416 bad sectors and this replacement drive has 320 bad sectors. They're putting defective chips in these things and passing them off as new drives! And Newegg won't give a refund. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Anybody want to buy this drive? :c) I guess I'll never buy another ADATA product. $114! You get what you pay for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

320 bad sectors out of the box! My gosh...

This makes some sense though, ADATA told us they didn't want to sample review drives to us because they're reworking their line. But it sounds like they might know about these QC problems and didn't want us to see them. WHo knows...but their brand quality is certainly swirling down,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the new S599 from Newegg and this one has 320 bad sectors and behaves just as badly as my first one did. I am of the opinion that there is something seriously wrong with these drives. After I read of your experience, and then the experience that I have now had with 2 of them in a row... These things are shipping with bad sectors. Aren't these supposed to be new drives? My S596 didn't have any bad sectors on it. My first S599 had 416 bad sectors and this replacement drive has 320 bad sectors. They're putting defective chips in these things and passing them off as new drives! And Newegg won't give a refund. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Anybody want to buy this drive? :c) I guess I'll never buy another ADATA product. $114! You get what you pay for!

I also had the S596's, they got returned because they had the habbit of not being detected by my bios and because they were in RAID it was unbootable...

The law in The Netherlands is pretty good for a customer with bad products, if the product is a inferior product the customer can demand his money back. I dunno how the law is where you live, but I expect there should be a way to work this out with the supplier of your drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this