Jump to content



Photo

my first ssd, OMG, it cost me to much pain!


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 R1pper

R1pper

    In Search Of The (Difficult) Truth.

  • Joined: 03-May 07
  • Location: Facing World, MHL.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:24

yes u heard me, i joined the ssd club today, yesterday, well, i dont know anymore.

 

 

stroy is like this: 3 month i bought ssd samsung 840, installed it 8 HRS ago, after learning that u must have AHCI enable.

and learned that "EASEUS to-do" free software is utter crap, ruined 1 of my partition, guys, any free software is utter ######, nothing works, and always something missing or get screwed, dear lord of what ever spirit out there, this SSD cost me 2 partitiones!!!!!!!!

 

first because of the free software of EASEUS todo, just ###### piece of software, never try to merge free space, with full partition, its just crappy and poor quality, will ruin ur day, i promise u.

the second is my own fault, the former master had similar size as my Games and Series partition, and i.....omg the pain is to severe.(my UT99!! )

 

anyway, i accepted the price, so i just wanted to ask u guys, after all the work, is it a good performances to samsung 840?

 

thanks for answering.

 

 

Attached Images

  • as-ssd-bench Samsung SSD 840  03.11.2013 04-55-51.png



#2 Darrian

Darrian

    The Apathetic

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 22-October 01

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:38

I don't think you need AHCI enabled, but I do think it notably improves performance.  I don't know why you used 3rd party software to partition it instead of just using what is built into Windows, especially if you are going to install/have installed Windows on it since the installer will automatically partition it.  Your speeds look "ok," but around half of what the specs indicate on Newegg.  I have an 830 model, but I am not home so can't bench and see how my specs compare to yours.  Hypothetically your speeds should be faster than mine.  Does your motherboard have SATA II or SATA III?



#3 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:44

I have an 840 and I get ~550MB/s read, so no, those speeds aren't right.

 

You do need AHCI enabled, and you need to connect it to your main SATA ports (Which ideally should be SATA 3), no idea why you messed around with any random partitioning tools, Windows does everything correctly when you install it.



#4 jjkusaf

jjkusaf

    Deadhead

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 19-January 03
  • Location: Prattville, Al
  • OS: Win 7 Pro x64

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:46

Sounds like you should have done some googling and researching before taking on this project.  EaseUS Todo does just fine migrating a windows installation to the SSD.  

 

I do not own a Samsung 840 but those numbers seem really poor...the Seq should probably be double and the 4K-64 Thrd should be multiple times faster.  



#5 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 36
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 03 November 2013 - 03:57

I am sorry you don't know what you are doing with software. I have used the easeus product line for years and never had one problem with it. I have always merged free space with my drives and with windows 7 you can do that without third party utilities.

You certainly are not running as fast as you should be and this should have been a fresh install not a image over from a sata drive.

#6 Denis W.

Denis W.

    The True North!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 06-March 05
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario [CA]
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro and OS X Yosemite
  • Phone: iPhone 6

Posted 03 November 2013 - 04:23

In the future, I would highly recommend saving a backup image of your disk to another larger disk, preferably a disk designated just for backups only. You should be keeping imaging your disk to backup medium on a semi-regular basis in any case. That way you won't lose anything if you screw up. How did you transfer your hard drive to your SSD anyway? Very likely you would've had to clone your hard drive, no? If it's any other method that messes with your original hard drive, then yeah that's very risky.

 

That being said, it seems like this is a SATA-II motherboard - in that case, the sequential read speed would make sense. I have two computers with SATA-II connections and it bottles out at around 260 MB/s.



#7 OP R1pper

R1pper

    In Search Of The (Difficult) Truth.

  • Joined: 03-May 07
  • Location: Facing World, MHL.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:09

guys thank you for answering, let me explain:

 

1. i never knew till 3days ago, i can migrate my OS into the ssd, as is.

that's why i waited 3 month, waited for fresh install, or other malfunction that causes fresh install.

 

2. all the tech guides recommended to use EASEus to do free, i did exactly as they asked.

and it was utter crap, the drive never booted into windows, lacked so many minimal features, it is a joke, nothing else.

then i decided to use, guess what? paragon free tool, another crappy tool.

 

u know what saved me?

and it was all along in front of my face, but as a beginner, i had to listen to paid sites, just to download the crappy software that got NOTHING!

no matter the software, SSD never booted, change boot priority, removed the old driver, and NOTHING!

 

so i used the SAMSUNG MIGRATION TOOL, and OMG, dear sweet mother of drive, it took a minute longer, but IT COPIED my OS and BOOTED my SSD!! PERFECTLY!!!

 

so now i was so scared if ill plug the old drive, trouble will appear, so, before the ssd start loading the OS, i used win7 installation disc to format the old OS partition, well, my head so dull from over thinking(took me 3 HRS from the start, researching guides, plug it, bios setting ETC) and i was tired, so very much, i formatted the wrong partition. :crazy: :(

 

my main advice on OS MIGRATION IS:

if anyone want to migrate their OS to SSD, useSAMSUNG \ INTEL tools, they are DESIGNED to make it happen, dont need any favors from CRAPPY FREE and invalid tools, that their soul purpose is to make u BUY them, because the lack of features\crappy job.

 

 

and yes, my mobo is sata 2, GA-MA790XT-UD4P (rev. 1.0), still a bit low, but il figure it out. -)

 

 

any advice for me guys, on what settings to check, that will make my ssd to be in optimal shape?

 

again guys, thank u for answering, all the best to you all!

:)



#8 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:20

<snipped>
 
Scores look about right for that board.
 
Other than that, all I'd suggest is installing the Intel Rapid Storage Technology suite (a.k.a. Intel Matrix RAID).
 
Can get a bit more performance out of the chipset, but mightn't result in anything noteworthy.

#9 Darrian

Darrian

    The Apathetic

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 22-October 01

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:20

With SATA II you're pretty much maxed out.  I doubt you will get it running any faster than what it is now.  Your only real options are to buy a SATA III controller card or upgrade your motherboard to one that has SATA III onboard (I would get a new mobo).



#10 +Anarkii

Anarkii

    Member N° 1,455

  • Joined: 02-October 01
  • Location: Sydney, Australia
  • OS: Windows 10 Technical Preview 9879
  • Phone: iPhone 6+, iOS 8.1

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:28

Out of all the things you could of done, you didn't do the one thing that you really needed to do.

Ask on these boards.

These forums have some of the most tech minded people on the planet. 

In future when upgrading a component, I highly suggest asking the people here first.



#11 OP R1pper

R1pper

    In Search Of The (Difficult) Truth.

  • Joined: 03-May 07
  • Location: Facing World, MHL.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:31

<snipped>

With SATA II you're pretty much maxed out.  I doubt you will get it running any faster than what it is now.  Your only real options are to buy a SATA III controller card or upgrade your motherboard to one that has SATA III onboard (I would get a new mobo).

 
truth to be told, i dont need it to be faster, the current speed is sufficed.(from POST to DESKTOP in 12 13 sec) :)
i'm not a gamer, or some power user, all i need to know is that i did all that can be done.

#12 Darrian

Darrian

    The Apathetic

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 22-October 01

Posted 03 November 2013 - 11:37

Well, if you're happy with it... just be advised that it's only running at about half-speed right now.



#13 OP R1pper

R1pper

    In Search Of The (Difficult) Truth.

  • Joined: 03-May 07
  • Location: Facing World, MHL.

Posted 03 November 2013 - 12:06

out curiosity, do you think running at half speed will some how make the SSD more durable?

i mean will make it live longer?



#14 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 03 November 2013 - 12:07

Yes, but not because it's any more durable. You're just limited in how much data you can write to it at once.



#15 Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 15-October 10

Posted 03 November 2013 - 12:13

out curiosity, do you think running at half speed will some how make the SSD more durable?

i mean will make it live longer?

 

From what I've learned, I'm leaning towards yes,

finite number of read/write, amount of space used vs speed of writing etc...

 

But on a slightly off topic note,

I have a kingston ssd I bought used from ebay (it was cheap)

my pc's 12 years old and hardware doesn't support anywhere near those speeds, but it still made my pc boot faster (45 secs to desktop, where is used to take twice that windows 7 x64)

pc's no faster, but loading has become quicker

(and when I bought mine I didn't know about the finite writes, but ssd life did report I still have about 8 years left in it, so I guess it wasn't a total loss)