Here's mine: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500gb SATA

My first 'new' computer had the second biggest HD available at the time....a huge 1gig....the 'biggest' was 1.2.

It finally died with about 30% bad sectors and counting...due to an electrical short in the tower case...

While I can build computers and maintain them, up to a point, I'm blowed if I know what these scores mean.  For a start, the top 2 scores are quite low in comparison to ALMonty's and Frogboy's, yet the bottom 2 are several steets ahead.... maybe even suburbs apart.  So WFT?

I'm currently running an AMD Ryzen Threadropper 2920X and I'm wondering why the top 2 scores are actually lower than with my AMD Ryzen 1700X... and that's with the same 512GB Intel SSD 760p Series NVME M.2.  It just don't make sense to me.

Anyway, here's my score:

If anyone can explain why the 2 top scores are so low and why the bottom 2 are as high as, please do so here as I'm mystified and would like to better understand.

Thing is, I'm, getting some 'unbelievably' high move copy transfer rates, in some instances right up to 320mbs and higher.  Like this is the absolute fastest machine I have ever used.  In most instances, it boots to a fully working screen in 16 to 18 seconds, but those top scores do make me wonder, why so low.  I also have 32GB of 3200 RAM installed, so it's not like there's a bottleneck there... well there shouldn't be.

Anyhow, I've had a fair few beers and I'm not far off of bedtime.... nighty night.    

You may have some sort of software caching/acceleration thing installed.

The figures from AlMonty suggest he is as 550MB/sec would be around the sata interface limit and his are 10x that.

I don't have any software caching/acceleration thing installed..... well not that I know of.  Anyway, I did another test and came up with similar figures:

That was at the 'Peak' setting.

This next one is at the default setting:

And this one is at the 'Real World performance setting:

Some varying results..... and I'm still none the wiser.  At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter if the figures are up and down, so long as I'm happy with the machine, that's the important thing.

..... and so much for going to bed earlier.  I got collared into doing something for Shaunna and got completely distracted from my original course of action  However, at 3.28am, there will be no deviating away from my getting into bed this time around.

And here from the title of the original post I thought this thread was going to be a chart of disk drive access times from the IBM Model 350 (1957) through to the present  

Just asking, not trolling.

Yeah, it probably should be 36, but I'm curious as to which CPU and mobo Frogboy is running.... an Intel or an AMD, an ASUS, MSI or a Gigabyte motherboard?  Mine is an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X with 12 cores and 24 threads on a MSI X399 TR4 socket mobo.  The latest Threadripper, the 3990X, has 64 cores and 128 threads, though I don't think it will sit on too many enthusiasts desks, given its US$3990 price tag.  It's more for businesses to power workstations, etc, rather than the home user/enthusiast market.... but ooooh, it'd be nice3 to have3 one.

Just a $600.00 Store Bought HP Desktop 12Gig ram Multi-core (4 total)/Hyper Hyper-threaded (8 total)

Processor ^a3.70 gigahertz AMD Ryzen 5 3400G with Radeon Vega Graphics ... 256 GB SSD C:drive

It gets the Job done for me , I'm not a gamer .

DeFault

Peak

Real World

ALMonty

reply 1

Here's mine: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500gb SATA

Those numbers are crazy.

There must be somethin gmore to this.  That's over 40gigabit which is beyond what PCI Express 3.0c can even deliver.

correct.  I was told there would not be...math.

There wasn't....and there-in lies your problem....

LOL.

Frogboy

reply 10

Quoting ALMonty,

reply 1

Here's mine: Samsung SSD 860 EVO 500gb SATA

Those numbers are crazy.

There must be somethin gmore to this.  That's over 40gigabit which is beyond what PCI Express 3.0c can even deliver.

Yeah, there's quite some difference between ALMonty's and our default scores, but the thing that I don't get is why Peak and Real World scores for Azdude and myself are through the roof.  I understand that tests under Peak are probably measuring optimum levels, but the Real World scores are equally confusing.

As a matter of interest, I did a WEI test via Windows Ultimate Tweaker 4 and came up with these results covering CPU, memory and storage, etc:

The CPU, RAM and desktop graphics scores are quite decent, but my primary drive and graphics card are a tad below what I expected.  The Drive is an Intel 760p 512GB NVME M.2 SSD, which I thought would do better than that.

The graphics card I knew wouldn't score too highly as better and faster cards have been released since purchasing my Radeon RX 570,  I do intend to upgrade it somewhere down the track, but for now it will serve my purposes as funds need to be upped again after spending close to AU$2000 on the new Threadripper build not so long ago.

Anyhow, they are decent specs and make me feel better about spending quite a bit more than first planned,

The reason is you are not comparing like with like.  The Peak and Real world scores are showing uops and us vs MB/Sec which the other ones show.

ALMonty's is due to some sort of ram caching some manufacturers offer.  This makes the benchmark scores look great but the OS was already caching when needed most of the time and the difference is the OS cache gets disabled by the benchmark (intentionally), but a third party one does not.

I just remembered I have Rapid mode turned on through my Samsung software. If that answers anyone's questions.

No, I was curious as to why Peak AND Realworld readings were so different to the default ones..... and unlike ALMonty, I do not have any firmware or software installed to boost my OS drive.  I do have IObit's Smart Defrag installed, but it merely Optimises and trims, that's all.