MLC v SLC

[Brad]

I recently received a Samsung MLC drive for the X300 and used HD Tune to compare the two.

Here is what I found.

HD Tune: SAMSUNG MCCOE64G8MPP Benchmark SLC Windows xP sP3 32 bit

Transfer Rate Minimum : 49.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 72.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 56.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 0.6 ms
Burst Rate : 50.3 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 16.0%


HD Tune: SAMSUNG MMCRE64G8MXP Benchmark MLC Vista Business 32 bit

Transfer Rate Minimum : 66.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 97.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 69.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate : 47.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 22.0%

Any thoughts?

Brad

[visionviper]

Any thoughts?

That SLC drive is ~8 months older than that MLC drive - which also happens to be a quite recently released drive.

[LenovoGringo]

Isn't Vista more SSD 'compatible?' I know Win 7 has settings to automatically take advantage of SSD tech.

[AvalonXIII]

I recently received a Samsung MLC drive for the X300 and used HD Tune to compare the two.

Here is what I found.

HD Tune: SAMSUNG MCCOE64G8MPP Benchmark SLC Windows xP sP3 32 bit

Transfer Rate Minimum : 49.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 72.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 56.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 0.6 ms
Burst Rate : 50.3 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 16.0%


HD Tune: SAMSUNG MMCRE64G8MXP Benchmark MLC Vista Business 32 bit

Transfer Rate Minimum : 66.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 97.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 69.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 0.2 ms
Burst Rate : 47.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 22.0%

Any thoughts?

Brad

Your benchmark is too low for both the MLC and the SLC drive. I'm assuming you're benchmarking read speed, which should be around 90MB/sec to 100MB/sec average.

[Brad]

Thanks for all your replies.

The results seem very low to me also.

This is an X300. Are there other settings that I am missing?

Brad

[AvalonXIII]

Thanks for all your replies.

The results seem very low to me also.

This is an X300. Are there other settings that I am missing?

Brad

Try using CrystalDiskMark and post the result again. There shouldn't be any reason why the result is that low, unless you run other software while benchmarking.