SSD vs HDD Speeds

[theFOoL]

So i connected my 32GB Custom SSD along side my 1TB HDD and here are the speeds... What gives? I thought SSD were Slightly faster?

The Case/Board for my mSata Card

My HDD got twice the speed... 271MB

 

[Kursah]

There's things you need to look at when comparing. Depending on the type of SSD, type of memory modules, type of controller, interface, rated operations, size of the cache, etc. In most cases, most SSD's should be faster than HDD's. But that is not always true.

Been a looooong time since I've seen an SSD smaller than 120GB...looks like that is an older SSD you have here.

So how does the SSD speed compare to your HDD? I see Single and Multi screens which I got to assume are for the SSD since you cut out the rest of the program. I prefer to use Crystal Disk Mark and Info. But to each their own. There's plenty of utilities to choose from. You should post more information and details.

Newer HDD's do have improved throughput, but SSD's will always win the response/latency test, power consumption test, etc. Just due to designs. In most cases my SSD's are all quite a bit faster, and whether the tests always show that or not, real-life situations like booting OSes, performing searches in folders with 1,000's of files, Trim vs Defrag, loading games, etc...are all much faster.

That being said, my 1TB (960GB) SSD has a 1GB DDR3 cache, so on writes it slows to 70MB/s once the cache fills up as the controller keep up due to the design limitations for its generation (older one now)...reads are still smoking fast though. I got it for a good deal, and as a game drive it is excellent!

 

[theFOoL]

Yeah LoL the Cache must be the issue or the Brand. I'll try a better program. I used HWinfo.

 

[Kursah]

Yeah LoL the Cache must be the issue or the Brand. I'll try a better program. I used HWinfo.

It's just a design issue. The memory chips have a slower write than read, but the cache is much faster. So it'll do super fast writes for the first gigabyte, then after the cache fills up it bogs down. Not something you'd notice unless you were doing a lot of large file transfers to the drive. Newer SSD's are getting away from this though, becoming far less noticeable.

 

[theFOoL]

Yeah but real SSDs aren't cheap but I see why most go for them. No noise, Less Power-Draw, Better Battery Life for Laptops(?) and others

and here's my result

 

[Kursah]

Seems you have a similar limitation on writes, possibly due to no/low amount of cache, controller and memory chip design limits, I would expect that from an old 32GB unit. Very common on older and cheaper SSD's.

SSD's can be cheaper-ish depending on the definition of cheap for storage and what you consider a "real" SSD....

 

[theFOoL]

LoL yeah. Brands like Sansa seem to Fall off the charts

O... My

 

[Disparia]

Yup, those are the advertised speeds for a Sandisk X110: 480/80 R/W (best case scenarios, of course).

Edit: I really thought it said 480 when I saw the Crystalmark, but it's more like 420.

 

[theFOoL]

It's the Writes I care about mostly so...

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Depends on brand, model, and capacity you buy. Most consider the Samsung EVO series to be about the best bang for buck overall for a high a performance SSD. The reason higher capacity SSDs are faster is they user denser, faster Nand.

512GB is the ultimate, but for those on a budget, but want enough room for some games, the 256GB models are very well priced now. My suggestion is to get a 256 and put a 40GB partition on it for the OS, maybe 60-80 partition for programs, and leave the remaining 150 or so GB for a few games that have issues with loading levels and streaming textures.

 

[eidairaman1]

SSDs are great for OS boot drives, Budget models still are faster at booting.

Best Drives still are Samsung Pro Series SSDs

 

[Tomgang]

I will chose ssd over hdd any time. Unless you have a very old, cheap ssd that is slow. Hdd is no match for a ssd.

I have now 4 ssd in my system for os and games. Hdd only used for storage.

Here is a speed compare to my ssd and hdd. Please note that on my old x58 system sata ports dosent give full true sata 3 speed but max out at 400 mb/s read and 250 mb/s write. If the two ssd connected to sata 3 and ran full speed max read/write would be in the range of 500 mb/s. Same with my m.2 ssd since it runs over pcie 2 x4 max speed for that is about 1700 mb/s. That crucial m4 ssd run on sata two throw it is a sata 3 ssd so its max read speed is not shown nether.

But here is my drives speed even throw some of them are hold back.

 

[Vya Domus]

Key advantage of SSDs is better response time not faster read/write speeds. Even with those unimpressive results it will still provide a more responsive experience than regular HDDs , that's whats most noticeable anyway.

 

[Tomgang]

Key advantage of SSDs is better response time not faster read/write speeds. Even with those unimpressive results it will still provide a more responsive experience than regular HDDs , that's whats most noticeable anyway.

In response to that ssd also have zero seek time cause there arw no spinning platters but data atorage on chips means instand access while an hdd seeks the platters for data and have wait to it spins one rpm to seek more data. So where an ssd has 0.1 ms seek time while hdd normaly have about 12-14 ms for 7200 rpm hdd.

Lower seek time means instand respons and no wait for read/load data like hdd.

 

[theFOoL]

Seems my speed slightly Improved while connected via MB rather then eSata Port...

 

[theFOoL]

So I finally installed W10 on that Small 32GB SSD I made. The Build is 1703 [Latest]... Makes me Happy

 

[theFOoL]

Hello again,

So it all turns out to be either my Sata cables or MB. Sadly without me looking at details with buying these the speeds are or cables were only Sata 1/1.5G

Buying Sata 3/6.0G

 

[Hockster]

Win 10 actually fit on the 32GB drive?

 

[theFOoL]

Win 10 actually fit on the 32GB drive?

Yeah you have to download the latest version of windows 10 ISO but you'll be limited in storage. I Actually have to retest tonight

 

[jboydgolfer]

I love my Samsung 850EVO's . They're so small, have no moving parts, I attached them and just stuffed them underneath my 280mm radiator ,totally unattached to the case or any type of hard drive mount, other than the power and data cables connected to them.

 

[ChristTheGreat]

you have to understand that even a SATA 1 SSD will be f aster than an HDD. Why? Latency... you have 0.1ms while the bes tHDD, like a 15k wopuld be 5-6ms... a 7200rpm is between 10ms and 15ms..

you looks like you wstill have an issue. but write might stay like this, it depends of the controller and chip I guess. but don'T worry, it's still way faster, look at the 4k, Seq

 

[newtekie1]

Hello again,

So it all turns out to be either my Sata cables or MB. Sadly without me looking at details with buying these the speeds are or cables were only Sata 1/1.5G

Buying Sata 3/6.0G

The cables did not change between SATA 1.5 and SATA 6. So the cable likely isn't the issue. The fact is the drive is only capable of what you are getting.

However, even with sequential write speeds half that of your hard drive, the SSD will still feel faster if used as system drive. The reason is the 4k read and write speeds of the SSD are significantly faster than an HDD. System drives very rarely have long sequential reads and writes. Instead they are usually under random read and write load, which is where an SSD shines compared to a HDD.

 

[BadFrog]

Seems my speed slightly Improved while connected via MB rather then eSata Port...

TBH, that's prob the max performance you're going to get from that cache ssd drive. The manufacturers rated specs is Up to 460mbps read and up to 80 mbps write. The reason the read speeds are slower then what the Up to max read speed is mosty likely the SSD has more than 60% fillled from your OS install, which will slow performance.

If you really want to feel the "speed of SSD" then I highly suggest any Samsung. Their m.2 nvme drives are screamers.

This is mine on a Samsung 960 Evo 1tb M.2 NVME SSD