Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    New ROGer Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    17

    Same problem here. I have a Samsung 960 EVO 500GB installed under the chipset cooler. So I'm NOT using the Dimm.2 expansion card.

    What the performance SHOULD BE:


    What my performance currently is (and what you are experiencing as well):


    As you can see, the 4K scores are significantly lower than they should be.

    My suggestion: should we install the Samsung NVM Express Driver 2.2? Windows already says that the best drivers are installed though.

    CPU: 1950X
    Mobo: This one of course
    RAM: 2x G.Skill Trident Z RGB F4-3200C16Q-32GTZR @ 2800Mhz

    Let's fix this! Thanks
    Last edited by ROGFanboy; 09-20-2017 at 07:45 PM.

  2. #12
    ROG Member Array
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    11

    Quote Originally Posted by IvoSilva View Post
    Your EVO seems to be the boot/OS drive (C:\) Then it would be normal for it not to achieve it's maximum performance since it it serving as the OS drive and will never achieve its peak performance because of it.

    Anyone wanting the nvme max performance must use it as a standalone drive unrelated to OS and make sure it is cooled appropriately in order to avoid thermal throttling.
    It is the boot drive yes. I'd expect some overhead due to that but compared to theirs, I'm getting 35% less on the 4k Q32T1 portion, seems more of a difference than it should be.

    Maybe it is throttling however - I'll check temps.

  3. #13
    ROG Guru: Black Belt Array Korth PC Specs
    Korth PC Specs
    MotherboardASUS X99 R5E (BIOS2101/1902)
    ProcessorHaswell-EP E5-1680-3 SR20H/R2 (4.4GHz)
    Memory (part number)Vengeance LPX 4x8GB SS DDR4-3000 (CMK32GX4M4C3000C15)
    Graphics Card #1NVIDIA Quadro GP100GL/16GB, 16xPCIe3, NVLink1 (SLI-HB)
    Graphics Card #2NVIDIA Quadro GP100GL/16GB, 16xPCIe3, NVLink1 (SLI-HB)
    Sound CardJDS Labs O2+ODAC (RevB), USB2 UAC1
    MonitorASUS PG278Q
    Storage #1Samsung 850 PRO 512GB SSDs, 4xSATA3 RAID0
    Storage #2Comay BladeDrive E28 3200GB SSD, 8xPCIe2
    CPU CoolerRaijintek NEMESIS/TISIS, AS5, 2xNH-A14
    CaseObsidian 750D (original), 6xNH-A14
    Power SupplyZalman/FSP ZM1250 Platinum
    Headset Pilot P51 PTT *modded*
    OS Arch, Gentoo, Win7x64, Win10x64
    Network RouterActiontec T3200M VDSL2 Gateway
    Accessory #1 TP-Link AC1900 Archer T9E, 1xPCIe
    Accessory #2 ASUS/Infineon SLB9635 TPM (TT1.2/FW3.19)
    Accessory #3 ASUS OC Panel I (FW0501)
    Korth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Reputation
    152
    Posts
    2,719

    Quote Originally Posted by ROGFanboy View Post
    What the performance SHOULD BE:
    Again, different hardware provides different results. That benchmark was run on a 1TB Samsung 960 NVMe and an ASRock Z270 Extreme4 motherboard. Not an ASUS X399 Zenith Extreme motherboard. Different chipset, different architecture, different design, different implementation, different priorities, different performances, different tradeoffs, different bottlenecks.

    Also remember that CrystalDiskMark is a synthetic measure. It's not profoundly meaningful (accurate) in itself, it's only meaningful as a reference comparable to other measures.
    "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams

    [/Korth]

  4. #14
    New ROGer Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    17

    Quote Originally Posted by Korth View Post
    Again, different hardware provides different results. That benchmark was run on a 1TB Samsung 960 NVMe and an ASRock Z270 Extreme4 motherboard. Not an ASUS X399 Zenith Extreme motherboard. Different chipset, different architecture, different design, different implementation, different priorities, different performances, different tradeoffs, different bottlenecks.

    Also remember that CrystalDiskMark is a synthetic measure. It's not profoundly meaningful (accurate) in itself, it's only meaningful as a reference comparable to other measures.
    So you're telling me that a 600 euro motherboard cuts NVMe performance in half? With all due respect, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. I expect nothing but top performance, especially from a chip and motherboard like this. I am willing to compromise some performance, sure, but not over 50%. Outrageous.

    Is there any other way I can truly test the performance of my 960 Evo? I figured CrystalDiskMark is a solid indication, but if you say it's not, then it's probably a good idea to test it in a different way?

    Thanks!

    EDIT: I installed Samsung NVM Express Driver 2.2 and got a performance improvement. Still not even remotely close to what it's supposed to be.



    EDIT 2: Sorry! The performance increase was probably just a coincidence. The default Windows drivers are still installed somehow.



    I am completely lost here.
    Last edited by ROGFanboy; 09-21-2017 at 11:05 AM.

  5. #15
    ROG Guru: Yellow Belt Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Reputation
    13
    Posts
    131

    Quote Originally Posted by ROGFanboy View Post
    So you're telling me that a 600 euro motherboard cuts NVMe performance in half? With all due respect, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. I expect nothing but top performance, especially from a chip and motherboard like this. I am willing to compromise some performance, sure, but not over 50%. Outrageous.

    Is there any other way I can truly test the performance of my 960 Evo? I figured CrystalDiskMark is a solid indication, but if you say it's not, then it's probably a good idea to test it in a different way?

    Thanks!

    EDIT: I installed Samsung NVM Express Driver 2.2 and got a performance improvement. Still not even remotely close to what it's supposed to be.



    EDIT 2: Sorry! The performance increase was probably just a coincidence. The default Windows drivers are still installed somehow.



    I am completely lost here.
    Have a look in Device Manager in the category for Storage Controllers and not the individual disks and you should see "Samsung NVMe Controller".
    It is listed twice for me, have a 960 Pro and a 960 Evo.

  6. #16
    New ROGer Array
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    17

    Quote Originally Posted by Ljugtomten View Post
    Have a look in Device Manager in the category for Storage Controllers and not the individual disks and you should see "Samsung NVMe Controller".
    It is listed twice for me, have a 960 Pro and a 960 Evo.
    You're right, it's there. Explains the small performance gains. Thanks! Unfortunately the problem is still not fixed. Maybe it's something that ASUS has to patch with an update?

  7. #17
    ROG Member Array
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    11

    In my case it seems to be due to throttling. The 960 evo is hitting upwards of 80 C when I run CrystalDiskMark. I'll try adding a fan there and see how it performs then.
    Last edited by relm56; 09-21-2017 at 07:36 PM.

  8. #18
    New ROGer Array
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Reputation
    10
    Posts
    4

    i got the same problem with asus prime X399 and Samsung 960 EVO 1000GB very slow. And all computer on windows 10 seems to be very slow
    the cpu is a RYZEN 1950X with 32gb
    please help
    thank you

    f
    Miniatura de Adjuntos Miniatura de Adjuntos christall.JPG  


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •