©ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

jbasemoine · ‎03-30-2017

Hi there,

I'm using the samsung Magician software to benchmark my m2 ssd.
I have gotten the follow test results (benchmarked 2 times one on 0920 other on 1002 bios)
The results are as follow:

0920
Sequential (MB\s) Random
Read 2,768 97.00
Write 1,373 86.109

1002
Sequential Random
Read 2,62 105.506
Write 1,554 96.744

I was wondering if this is the correct speed/testing result or do i need to change some things in bios to get better results ?
At this point i did not change anything (do not know if i can) regarding the m2 SSd so all in default regarding the m2. If i need to change anything to get better speeds please let me know 😄

Thank you for you help/advice in advance!:cool:

Darth_Ender · ‎03-30-2017

I have the same SSD in my 1800x system.

hdparm is not a great test utility but I dont really feel like running bonnie++ on it or anything. It's fast and seems to be operating at it's intended speed.

The first measurement takes into account cache, hence the 12GB/sec speed. The second number is closer to what you'd expect from the drive as raw speed. Actual data transfer speed will change slightly depending on filesystem and how populated it is etc, but almost definitely will be lower than what hdparm -t shows to some degree.

hdparm -tT /dev/nvme0n1

/dev/nvme0n1:
Timing cached reads: 25786 MB in 2.00 seconds = 12905.32 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 7098 MB in 3.00 seconds = 2365.99 MB/sec

edit: here's some of my SSD's and one relic sata spinner for comparison in the same system.

/dev/sda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 1280 MB in 3.00 seconds = 426.39 MB/sec
root@psuedomode:/home/safemode# hdparm -t /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
Timing buffered disk reads: 960 MB in 3.00 seconds = 319.52 MB/sec
root@psuedomode:/home/safemode# hdparm -t /dev/sdc

/dev/sdc:
Timing buffered disk reads: 1442 MB in 3.00 seconds = 480.33 MB/sec
root@psuedomode:/home/safemode# hdparm -t /dev/sdd

/dev/sdd:
Timing buffered disk reads: 362 MB in 3.01 seconds = 120.25 MB/sec

Postguru · ‎03-31-2017

Samsung 960 EVO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.1 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 3240.043 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 1683.573 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 555.403 MB/s [135596.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 395.855 MB/s [ 96644.3 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 1927.763 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 1658.932 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 47.020 MB/s [ 11479.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 217.911 MB/s [ 53200.9 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 19.2% (89.4/465.7 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/03/10 18:17:58
OS : Windows 7 Professional SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

Frikencio · ‎03-31-2017

Here are my drives speeds:

SATA3/SATA3/NVMe (960 EVO 500Gb)

BaneSilvermoon · ‎03-31-2017

Hmm. I'm gonna have to try that CrystalMark program. I've got a 960 Pro so my speeds won't be relevant to this thread. But none of the HDD benchmarks I used for comparison on my old system are reading the M.2 drive speeds properly. Wish I had found this program before I swapped rigs.

JustinThyme · ‎03-31-2017

Your 960 pro will be very relevant. just a little faster than the 960 EVO depending on what platform o you are putting it in. If its Gen 2 NVME wasnt supported so it wont work and if its a laptop you wont pass about 2800Mbps due to DMI bottle neck.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, I'm not sure about the former” ~ Albert Einstein

BaneSilvermoon · ‎03-31-2017

Alright. Glad I posted here regardless, because it reminded me that I'd never installed the Samsung NVMe drivers. Saw a 20% seq. read improvement over the Microsoft drivers.

SAMSUNG 960 PRO M.2 1TB NVMe

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.1 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 3172.761 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 2087.243 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 432.036 MB/s [105477.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 396.252 MB/s [ 96741.2 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 2294.806 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 2041.218 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 56.468 MB/s [ 13786.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 200.641 MB/s [ 48984.6 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 40.4% (40.4/100.0 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/04/01 2:12:18
OS : Windows 10 [10.0 Build 14393] (x64)

BaneSilvermoon · ‎05-06-2017

Well my numbers have dramatically changed on this since last time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.1 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 10150.305 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 8512.584 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 655.307 MB/s [159987.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 580.279 MB/s [141669.7 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 8942.767 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 11345.029 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 445.732 MB/s [108821.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 413.540 MB/s [100961.9 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 49.7% (49.7/100.0 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/05/07 2:47:40
OS : Windows 10 [10.0 Build 15063] (x64)

JustinThyme · ‎05-07-2017

BaneSilvermoon wrote:
Well my numbers have dramatically changed on this since last time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.1 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 10150.305 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 8512.584 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 655.307 MB/s [159987.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 580.279 MB/s [141669.7 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 8942.767 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 11345.029 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 445.732 MB/s [108821.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 413.540 MB/s [100961.9 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 49.7% (49.7/100.0 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/05/07 2:47:40
OS : Windows 10 [10.0 Build 15063] (x64)

First run is actually less than what I got with Windows drivers.
Second run is Ram drive in action, not a true performance benchmark of just the drive. One can get the same with a spinner and ram drive.
Run it with an 8GB file and see what you get. It will saturate then plummet below that of a stand alone drive.

Here is what I got with 1 TB 960 pros

Windows drivers

Samsung drivers

Two 1TB 960 pros in raid zero, no comparison with drivers as Samsung drivers will not work downstream of a raid controller.

Looking at the results on these particular runs each had a slight advantage in different categories. This also changes with every run. Point is they are well within the margin of error and nowhere close to 20% difference.

Raid does get an improvement in a few places but takes a dive in the 4k dept. Nothing close to what you would think due to bottlenecking.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, I'm not sure about the former” ~ Albert Einstein

AUStheWOLF · ‎06-07-2017

BaneSilvermoon wrote:
Well my numbers have dramatically changed on this since last time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.2.1 x64 (C) 2007-2017 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 10150.305 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 8512.584 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 655.307 MB/s [159987.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 580.279 MB/s [141669.7 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 8942.767 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 11345.029 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 445.732 MB/s [108821.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 413.540 MB/s [100961.9 IOPS]

Test : 1024 MiB [C: 49.7% (49.7/100.0 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2017/05/07 2:47:40
OS : Windows 10 [10.0 Build 15063] (x64)

Man, that is awesome. I have the 512GB 960 Pro paired with the CH6/1800X, and I am currently nowhere near these numbers. I downloaded the latest Samsung drivers and firmware as well as the Magician software, but I am looking terrible by comparison. Are there any settings I need to reconfigure in the UEFI? I am on BIOS 1107, running a 135BCLK. I wonder if this effects my results at all. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Samsung SSD 960 EVO 250GB Speeds