Why are my Intel random speeds so low?

I'm using an Intel 310 80gb which is essentially a smaller X25-M G2, same controller. Storagereview got 14/58 mb/s in CDM and ssdreview got 25/62. I'm wondering why I'm only getting 19/34. The Paragon tool says alignment is fine. Thanks for any help.

 

First, can you link the reviews? Were they using compressible or random fill? What size was the CDM sample? (100MB, 1000MB, etc) Did they run it in Safe Mode?

To be honest I'm surprised the huge discrepancy between 14 and 25 (assuming 4k reads?).

Assuming this is the StorageReview article: http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_310_series_80gb_review

IOMeter showed 14/58 read/write MB/s and CDM using 500MB showed 15/60 read/write MB/s which is close to IO Meter.

ssdreview.com assuming article here: http://www.ssdreview.com/review/com...80gb-msata-2cv102m1/crystaldiskbenchmark.html (or benchmarks really) probably ran in safe mode.

 

Here are screenshots of all of ssdreview's tests of the drive. Just the data is available as well. ssdreview is 1000MB, I tested the same way. Not sure about SR's method.

Pictures & Screenshots for Intel 310 Series 80GB mSATA SSD - Intel 310 Series 80GB mSATA / 2CV102M1 - SSD Review - SSD Reviews, Data Sheets and Comparison - ssdreview.com

StorageReview's test:

Intel SSD 310 Series 80GB Review | StorageReview.com

 

Looks like I'm not the only one. Another user of the 310 80gb in the same model machine with the same results.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/576202-those-you-intel-310-80gb-ssds.html

 

I tried what's in this thread and nothing changed. Any other ideas?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...-intel-series-4-5-965-chipsets-jjb-tweak.html

 

I used those tweaks on my intel 310 and this is what cdm shows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 206.684 MB/s
Sequential Write : 86.090 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 157.668 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 84.856 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 22.147 MB/s [ 5407.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 60.667 MB/s [ 14811.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 159.895 MB/s [ 39036.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 82.153 MB/s [ 20056.9 IOPS]

Test : 50 MB [C: 22.7% (16.9/74.5 GB)] (x3)
Date : 2011/05/05 19:28:50
OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

 

Thanks for posting this, it's very helpful to have a reference from another model. Roughly what were your 4k speeds before the tweaks?

 

Here is right out of the box, fresh install.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 195.820 MB/s
Sequential Write : 85.822 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 155.409 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 85.605 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 14.515 MB/s [ 3543.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 20.004 MB/s [ 4883.9 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 138.605 MB/s [ 33839.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 82.046 MB/s [ 20030.8 IOPS]

Test : 50 MB [C: 26.8% (20.0/74.5 GB)] (x3)
Date : 2011/04/10 13:43:07
OS : Windows 7 Home Premium Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

 

Hmm the EP121 uses the Series 5 chipset right? I guess it makes sense that the tweaks worked effectively then. Maybe Sandy Bridge / Series 6 needs to be tweaked differently.

 

I have a Sandy in my Sager, had an Intel ssd x25-m G2 120 in it for a bit before puting it in my wifes Asus G73, it ran near specs benchwise. Try to go to system info, components, storage, disks, and then look at partition starting offset. If you divide that number by 4096 and it is an whole number, then it is aligned. I have had mixed success with both paragon, and using Acronis, so this will tell you for sure if it is aligned. You should be getting better numbers than you are, but your chipset should not be slowing you down, as far as everything I have read, fwiw. Just in case, you have defrag off, correct? And there are a few other things that you can turn off that would be making many small writes to the ssd, causing slowdowns. If your alignment in system info is a whole number, let me know, and I can give you a link or two to some tweaks that will limit the writes a normal hdd uses that can slow down a ssd.

 

Before using Paragon I checked manually by that method and it came out to be aligned. Scheduled defrag is off. I also disabled Superfetch, Indexing on the ssd and hibernation.

One thing to note, related to the tweaks from that thread, is that with or without those tweaks applied I see the clock speed / voltage constantly switching between lowest possible and max turbo. Is this what those tweaks are supposed to correct? If so, they doesn't seem to work on this chipset.

Thanks for your feedback so far.

 

As far as I can see, the tweaks really apply to the HM55 chipset. I have not seen anything that would suggest any SB chipset would have issues with ssd's. I am sorry to say that I am stumped at this point. I have 3 ssd's, 1 in my Asus G73 which has the HM55 with tweaks running close to specs, 1 in an older Dell e6400 C2D that runs well, and 1 in my Asus EP121 with the HM55 tweaked, running near spec. I have a Sager with SB and SG Momentus xt that is only waiting on a Sata3, but I can't find one I want yet. But I ran both my Nova128 and Intel 120gb x25-m and had no problems with either. I will recheck this in the morning, since I have had a long day, and could be considered near brain dead (although my wife would suggest that is my normal state anyways) and see if I missed something. But nothing jumps out to me to say why your getting lower numbers than you should. Until tomorrow, I am hoping someone much wiser comes on here with an answer. But I will try to find out what may be going on in the morning. At least you can go to bed knowing you are still getting much better performance than on a hhd. But one way or another, someone will come up with why the numbers your getting are lower than they should be.

 

I just posted in the tweaks thread. Looks like a definite (so far uncontrollable) cpu throttling issue at this point.

 

In bios are you running ACHI or IDE? And for drivers: Intel RST or MSAHCI?

 

Intel AHCI controller.

 

I just saw it, and Phil has a lot more knowledge than I do on this, in fact he has led me through the gamut of ssd issues for about a year now. I am happy to see he was resonding to you, as I think he will be much more informative than I could be. In the end, I think he will be able to help you through this. Good luck. I will still try to find out why.

 

Thanks, I appreciate your ideas so far. Have a good night.

 

If it is a cpu throttling issue, you might want to try unparking your cores, and maybe throttlestop to see if it helps. I run my cores unparked, and use TS to help keep them at max performance. My heat didn't go up, I get no lag or stutter and find a very much better performance from my slate than before. I also would add that I do this with my G73, HP tx2510, Dell e6400 and my ep121. Before I unparked my cores, I would get stutter while waiting for one (or more on quad) core(s) to unpark.

 

Thanks, I'll try unparking the cores. Waiting for some files to transfer over the network that'll be done in 20min and then I can reboot. Is this how you did it?

(google result)
Windows 7 & Core Parking .... a *better* way to Turn It OFF ....

 

No, instead of deleting the values, you can go to regedit, and "find" core parking, and change the values to 0. then find next, and do the same. I will look on here for the thread, but it has you modify instead of deleting. Give me a bit of time to look them up, but I found the thread on here to do it, and I use it on all my laptops. The modification allows you to revert back if you have any issues.

 

This is how I did it. I changed each instance I found to 0, from 64 or 100 if I remember. But in the end I changed to 0. Be sure to back up your registry before you do this, so you can revert back if there is an issue. I have done this on all of my laptops, and have been very happy, and no real change in temps. It did eliminate stutter/lag on my lappys. And by backing up, if your not happy, you can revert.

- Go to Regedit
- Select Edit > Find... and find this key: " 0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583 "
- Within this key, there is a value called: " ValueMax " This value represents the % number of cores the system will park
- Change the value of " ValueMax" to 0 so that, it matches " ValueMin "
- You will have to find the key a few times and repeat the process for each time it is found - the number of instances will depend on the number of power profiles in your system. To do this go back up to Edit > Find Next. (I had 3 instances of this key in my registry.)
- Do a full shutdown and power-off and cold-re-start.

 

Changing that key didn't fix it, but I've found a solution. Disabling Speedstep in the BIOS has done the trick. Is this something that needs to be addressed by Lenovo?

 

Here we go:

 

your other values are a bit low (just kidding)

 

That is much better, but I am surprised you have to do that on a SB. I saw on the ssd thread what you said, very strange that Intel still doesn't have a way to tie disabling this to different power plans/performance modes. I daresay it will be a matter of time until one of these wise forum members finds a fix like JBB and Stanismax did for the hm55 chipset to unleash the ability of the ssd. Nice find on this and +1!

 

Maybe just turn on "max performance" while plugged in and see if that does the trick too. Seems to result in best performance on other SSD's for some reason.

 

Actually looks like Speedstep is way overkill to fix this. It locks it in at a high processor speed regardless of power option. There's a setting in the Power Manager (that controls it in the BIOS) called CPU Power Management. It prevents the constant throttling, but also affects battery life so it's not a real solution. It's a global setting as it is, but if they moved it into the power plans it'd be the perfect solution since one would be able to turn this feature on/off based on power source.

Everything discussed so far is on max performance while plugged in.