F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Benchmarking slow data transfer speeds

Benchmarking slow data transfer speeds

Benchmarking slow data transfer speeds

D
DropedPing
Junior Member
30
11-15-2016, 08:33 PM
#1
Recently, I performed an SSD benchmark using AS SSD. Sequential performance and access time were satisfactory, but the 4K-64Thrd speed was significantly slower than anticipated. I'm running a Samsung EVO 860 500 GB drive. 4K-64Thrd achieved 45 / 170 MB/s. After switching to standard SATA drivers, there was no improvement. I then used my old SSD infrequently as a multimedia server over the internet, still operating on Windows 10 version 1709. When I connected my current system drive for testing, the speed dropped to 380 / 320 MB/s. I also tested my wife's computer (running Windows 1903) and confirmed her SSD performance matched mine—still much lower than expected. Even when connecting another Samsung SSD as a second drive, results remained poor. It appears the issue started earlier. Everything functions normally in safe mode.
D
DropedPing
11-15-2016, 08:33 PM #1

Recently, I performed an SSD benchmark using AS SSD. Sequential performance and access time were satisfactory, but the 4K-64Thrd speed was significantly slower than anticipated. I'm running a Samsung EVO 860 500 GB drive. 4K-64Thrd achieved 45 / 170 MB/s. After switching to standard SATA drivers, there was no improvement. I then used my old SSD infrequently as a multimedia server over the internet, still operating on Windows 10 version 1709. When I connected my current system drive for testing, the speed dropped to 380 / 320 MB/s. I also tested my wife's computer (running Windows 1903) and confirmed her SSD performance matched mine—still much lower than expected. Even when connecting another Samsung SSD as a second drive, results remained poor. It appears the issue started earlier. Everything functions normally in safe mode.

A
alone_me
Member
180
11-20-2016, 12:22 PM
#2
Completed a CDM 4k q1t1 benchmark on my 900p 280GB drive and achieved about 150MB/s. Previously, speeds exceeded 250MB/s. Currently at 1909 with no straightforward way to revert to 1903 for comparison. Attempted CPU throttling earlier—speed dropped when CPU ran at lower clocks, but not at higher frequencies. It seems the performance is limited by kernel-level operations during testing. This might relate to recent Spectre/Meltdown mitigations on Intel systems.
A
alone_me
11-20-2016, 12:22 PM #2

Completed a CDM 4k q1t1 benchmark on my 900p 280GB drive and achieved about 150MB/s. Previously, speeds exceeded 250MB/s. Currently at 1909 with no straightforward way to revert to 1903 for comparison. Attempted CPU throttling earlier—speed dropped when CPU ran at lower clocks, but not at higher frequencies. It seems the performance is limited by kernel-level operations during testing. This might relate to recent Spectre/Meltdown mitigations on Intel systems.

N
148
11-20-2016, 01:03 PM
#3
I also thought it might be related — that's why I tried 1903 and that update addressed spectre/meltdown issues. I'm using Intel hardware. I'll give it more time—maybe someone else ran tests. Up to now, another problem popped up: the Comodo Firewall isn't working after the upgrade, which was frustrating because I wanted just a firewall, not their AV software. I spent about ten minutes searching for the right installer.
N
nicoandreassen
11-20-2016, 01:03 PM #3

I also thought it might be related — that's why I tried 1903 and that update addressed spectre/meltdown issues. I'm using Intel hardware. I'll give it more time—maybe someone else ran tests. Up to now, another problem popped up: the Comodo Firewall isn't working after the upgrade, which was frustrating because I wanted just a firewall, not their AV software. I spent about ten minutes searching for the right installer.

D
deboer121
Member
55
11-26-2016, 12:33 PM
#4
I ran a test using CrystalDiskMark for SSD and RAM drive: SSD vs RAM disk. It gives some insight, particularly with the large gap between Q32T16 and Q1T1 compared to similar tests on SSD. Keep in mind this isn't measuring regular RAM speed—it's focused on RAM disk performance. Also, note that ImDisk results might differ from standard RAM access.
D
deboer121
11-26-2016, 12:33 PM #4

I ran a test using CrystalDiskMark for SSD and RAM drive: SSD vs RAM disk. It gives some insight, particularly with the large gap between Q32T16 and Q1T1 compared to similar tests on SSD. Keep in mind this isn't measuring regular RAM speed—it's focused on RAM disk performance. Also, note that ImDisk results might differ from standard RAM access.

J
jxzuzuzo
Posting Freak
750
11-26-2016, 01:46 PM
#5
Well, it seems the issue hasn't changed since 1903. It looks like the problem might be related to my drivers. Update 2 – after hours of work (removing software, drivers, etc.), I located the cause. Switching accounts resolved the speed issues. Now I need to restore from 1909 again and figure out a fix or set up another user with important data.
J
jxzuzuzo
11-26-2016, 01:46 PM #5

Well, it seems the issue hasn't changed since 1903. It looks like the problem might be related to my drivers. Update 2 – after hours of work (removing software, drivers, etc.), I located the cause. Switching accounts resolved the speed issues. Now I need to restore from 1909 again and figure out a fix or set up another user with important data.

E
190
11-27-2016, 08:13 PM
#6
New user creation was quicker, and copying settings was straightforward without much hassle or time. Old profiles were retained to compare differences—there are many registry entries, so spotting issues might be tough, but it’s useful later. The biggest issue was disconnecting the Microsoft Account and linking the same account to another profile (confusing, no clear guidance online). Some admins could close this if needed.
E
Ender_Girl_LAF
11-27-2016, 08:13 PM #6

New user creation was quicker, and copying settings was straightforward without much hassle or time. Old profiles were retained to compare differences—there are many registry entries, so spotting issues might be tough, but it’s useful later. The biggest issue was disconnecting the Microsoft Account and linking the same account to another profile (confusing, no clear guidance online). Some admins could close this if needed.

H
Herobrine10090
Junior Member
12
11-27-2016, 10:58 PM
#7
Great to know the issue was resolved. The previous account with the old username had problems like the start menu not working on another system. It would be helpful if there were an option to fix user profiles. Your suggestion is noted and marked as solved.
H
Herobrine10090
11-27-2016, 10:58 PM #7

Great to know the issue was resolved. The previous account with the old username had problems like the start menu not working on another system. It would be helpful if there were an option to fix user profiles. Your suggestion is noted and marked as solved.

B
BlackOut_707
Junior Member
4
11-28-2016, 06:07 AM
#8
It isn't resolved. I'm looking for a workaround instead of a proper fix, and I don't want to feel pressured into changing how things are done. Perhaps one day I'll uncover a genuine solution, which is why I maintain my old profile.
B
BlackOut_707
11-28-2016, 06:07 AM #8

It isn't resolved. I'm looking for a workaround instead of a proper fix, and I don't want to feel pressured into changing how things are done. Perhaps one day I'll uncover a genuine solution, which is why I maintain my old profile.