• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Low random writes Samsung 990 Pro

C

Chry

Joined
Oct 8, 2022
Messages
290 (0.28/day)
System Specs
Processor Ryzen 5 7600X
Motherboard Asus Proart B650
Cooling Noctua U12S
Memory Corsair Vengeance DDR5 32GB (2x16GB) 5600MHz C36 AMD Expo
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7800 XT Nitro+
Storage Samsung 990 Pro 1Tb
Case Fractal Design Pop Silent
Audio Device(s) Edifier r1900tII
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Platinum 650W
IMG_20230410_055715_HDR.jpg


What could be the reason? 100% health, latest firmware. Fresh Windows but I tweaked the hell out of it.

This is what I would expect:
Samsung-990-Pro-Gen4-2TB-NVMe-M.2-SSD-Crystal-DiskMark-Bench.png
 
Did you update the firmware via samsung magician? 990pro needs a fw update out of the box to correct a couple things.
 
oobymach said:
Did you update the firmware via samsung magician? 990pro needs a fw update out of the box.
Click to expand...
I mentioned in the original post that the firmware is indeed the latest, I updated it before installing Windows 11 and then checked inside magician.
 
hardly anything to worry about not every controller is going to perform the exact same as a review model so welcome to the wonderful world of computing
 
Athlonite said:
hardly anything to worry about not every controller is going to perform the exact same as a review model so welcome to the wonderful world of computing
Click to expand...
If my results were 20% slower, I'd agree. But this is over 5 times slower than reference, which is not acceptable. I'm wondering what the reason could be.
 
Chry said:
If my results were 20% slower, I'd agree. But this is over 5 times slower than reference, which is not acceptable. I'm wondering what the reason could be.
Click to expand...
Bad BIOS config I'd assume, or something wrong with the slot you have it in.

Also, screenshots are ctrl+shift+s
 
dgianstefani said:
Bad BIOS config I'd assume, or something wrong with the slot you have it in.

Also, screenshots are ctrl+shift+s
Click to expand...
I did play around with bios settings.
Do you know any settings that could have this effect possibly, please?
 
Chry said:
If my results were 20% slower, I'd agree. But this is over 5 times slower than reference, which is not acceptable. I'm wondering what the reason could be.
Click to expand...
Check cpu usage whilst running the bench.
 
Hi,
Post this apps reading the other just hammers 1gb.
crystalmark.info

Download

[2025/06/19] CrystalMark Retro 2.0.5 – Manual / History Installer: Standard Edition Shizuku Edition Aoi Edition ZIP： Standard Edition for 9x for NT Shizuku Edition Shizuku for 9x Shizuku for NT Aoi Edition Aoi for 9x Aoi for NT Source Code Standard Edition Shizuku Edition Aoi Edition [2025/06...
crystalmark.info
 
ThrashZone said:
Hi,
Post this apps reading the other just hammers 1gb.
crystalmark.info

Download

[2025/06/19] CrystalMark Retro 2.0.5 – Manual / History Installer: Standard Edition Shizuku Edition Aoi Edition ZIP： Standard Edition for 9x for NT Shizuku Edition Shizuku for 9x Shizuku for NT Aoi Edition Aoi for 9x Aoi for NT Source Code Standard Edition Shizuku Edition Aoi Edition [2025/06...
crystalmark.info
Click to expand...
1681145067820.png


I am also unsure why reads and writes are so high as I barely used the PC yet. And I didn't test/benchmark for more than 30 minutes total.
 
Despite your attempts to blur it too badly, it looks to me like you are testing RAND 4K 32QT1 and the legible screenshot is testing RAND 4K 32QT16 which is why it is so much higher. I dont see a blured rounded number that would indicate a 6 at the end there.
 
chrcoluk said:
Check cpu usage whilst running the bench.
Click to expand...
It hit 100% during RND4K Q32T16 whilst reading. But it was only 20% during writing (which is the lowest expected result I got)

The_Enigma said:
Despite your attempts to blur it too badly, it looks to me like you are testing RAND 4K 32QT1 and the legible screenshot is testing RAND 4K 32QT16 which is why it is so much higher.
Click to expand...
Apologies that's just bad photo quality on TV screen.
Here's a new proper T16 test result after returning BIOS settings to default.
A bit better but still way below other's results:
1681145430654.png


1681145464901.png


Here are some random results from the internet of people getting at least twice the performance of RND4K Q32T16 WRITES, than I am getting (I found no pictures of anyone getting anywhere close to what I'm getting:
1681145708024.png

1681145722592.png

1681145745594.png

1681145758944.png
 
Hi,
I'd install hwinfo64 to see what the m.2 temp sensors are showing for temperatures which I believe the 990 has 3 and sammy ssd's run hot just your screen shot shows 51c

I'd also recommend a older 6.08 version instead of newer which has been showing issues for myself and others on 11 and even on win-10 after an hour or so
I also would use the portable and right click the zip folder and go to properties
Check the unblock box and save.
Then right click again extract all
Right click 64 bit exe and use send to create desktop shortcut.

After opening check the box to use sensors only.
Agree to the warning.
Scroll down the list for the drives
Run crystal disk mark again
Post a screen shot of the reading after.
HWiNFO - Download

Forgot to ask
Do you have a heatsink installed ?
 
ThrashZone said:
Hi,
I'd install hwinfo64 to see what the m.2 temp sensors are showing for temperatures which I believe the 990 has 3 and sammy ssd's run hot just your screen shot shows 51c

I'd also recommend a older 6.08 version instead of newer which has been showing issues for myself and others on 11 and even on win-10 after an hour or so
I also would use the portable and right click the zip folder and go to properties
Check the unblock box and save.
Then right click again extract all
Right click 64 bit exe and use send to create desktop shortcut.

After opening check the box to use sensors only.
Agree to the warning.
Scroll down the list for the drives
Run crystal disk mark again
Post a screen shot of the reading after.
HWiNFO - Download

Forgot to ask
Do you have a heatsink installed ?
Click to expand...
Thank you for trying to help. I don't think it's the temps because I get the same results even after fresh starting PC and getting straight to testing that specific things alone.
Plus, I am using motherboard's heatsink.
Here are the results, however.
1681157373928.png

Again, what's really weird is that total reads and writes are thousands of gigabytes already. And as I said before - I have almost not used this PC yet. I didn't install anything and only did some very minor benchmarking. Nothing to write/read this much, I think!

Edit: Reinstalled windows. Still same result. Guess im just bad at lottery.
 
Last edited:
Chry said:
Thank you for trying to help. I don't think it's the temps because I get the same results even after fresh starting PC and getting straight to testing that specific things alone.
Plus, I am using motherboard's heatsink.
Here are the results, however.
View attachment 291028
Again, what's really weird is that total reads and writes are thousands of gigabytes already. And as I said before - I have almost not used this PC yet. I didn't install anything and only did some very minor benchmarking. Nothing to write/read this much, I think!

Edit: Reinstalled windows. Still same result. Guess im just bad at lottery.
Click to expand...
Some 990 Pro early firmware versions have a bug that does log crazy levels of read/writes incorrectly. Are you certain you are on the latest firmware?
 
R-T-B said:
Some 990 Pro early firmware versions have a bug that does log crazy levels of read/writes incorrectly. Are you certain you are on the latest firmware?
Click to expand...
That's scary, because I'm really positive I have the latest version. :confused:

Update on initial speed issue:
Reinstalled windows and speed is still the same... :(
 
I'd sort of worry it could be a defective drive. Are you within a vendor return window?

Amazon won't give you trouble with a speed-based return, but YMMV.
 
I just bought it so yeah. I guess I'll just use it and see how it goes.
 
Chry said:
I just bought it so yeah. I guess I'll just use it and see how it goes.
Click to expand...
That would be my advice. If it does the same then, you know it's the rest of your system. It does seem odd, I agree.
 
Hi,
Indeed temps look fine
They do sort of hide behind the term "up to blah.. speeds" :/

By the way have you refreshed the current bios before installing the 990 or are you using newest ?
 
ThrashZone said:
Hi,
Indeed temps look fine
They do sort of hide behind the term "up to blah.. speeds" :/

By the way have you refreshed the current bios before installing the 990 or are you using newest ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, at least subjectively the drive is working fast so it's okay I guess.

I have the latest bios, tried reseting to defaults too. No effect.
 
Chry said:
Yeah, at least subjectively the drive is working fast so it's okay I guess.

I have the latest bios, tried reseting to defaults too. No effect.
Click to expand...
Hi,
Check the release dates see if the 990 was released after the newest bios or before
If bios are older it could just be a mother board bios quirk ?

Knowing sammy it's more likely firmware needs another update.
 
MarsM4N said:
The quality of Samsung SSD's has dropped dramatically after the 960, loads of issues with the 970's, 980's & 990's.

I guess you got one of the faulty ones. Would recommend returning it and get a WD, SK Hynix or Sabrent. :) Just stay away from Samsung SSD's. Far away.

https://wccftech.com/samsung-rolls-out-firmware-update-to-fix-990-pro-ssd-health-issues/
https://www.overclock.net/threads/p...h-reading-on-samsung-990-pro-2tb-ssd.1803022/
Click to expand...
This was affecting all 990 Pro drives and is supposedly fixed by a firmware update. It is not about the drive being faulty on hardware level.
At least that's the official line of thought.
 
You realize you are comparing your system drive to drives that are not system drives, right? Just the crap that Windows does in the background can massively affect CrystalDiskMark results. That's why all tests should be run on a non-system drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top