F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Issues with very slow NVME M.2 external SSD performance. Assistance needed.

Issues with very slow NVME M.2 external SSD performance. Assistance needed.

Issues with very slow NVME M.2 external SSD performance. Assistance needed.

T
TiemDiamond
Member
114
11-14-2022, 04:59 PM
#1
I recently acquired a budget gaming PC. The main problem is that the built-in NVMe SSD offers limited space for multiple games. To address this, I upgraded with a Samsung 980 PRO 1TB M.2 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD and a ROG Aurion case. I installed several games but experienced noticeable lag, especially when offline and even more so online. I ran Crystal Mark/Info on both drives to compare performance. The new external SSD is about 25% faster, which is significantly better than the original. What went wrong? I likely bought a larger drive than necessary, which made storage usage inefficient. My current specs are: AMD Ryzen™ 5 5600H (2.0–4.2GHz), 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050, 1 HDMI, USB-A 2.0, USB-A 3.0, and USB-C 3.1 ports.
T
TiemDiamond
11-14-2022, 04:59 PM #1

I recently acquired a budget gaming PC. The main problem is that the built-in NVMe SSD offers limited space for multiple games. To address this, I upgraded with a Samsung 980 PRO 1TB M.2 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD and a ROG Aurion case. I installed several games but experienced noticeable lag, especially when offline and even more so online. I ran Crystal Mark/Info on both drives to compare performance. The new external SSD is about 25% faster, which is significantly better than the original. What went wrong? I likely bought a larger drive than necessary, which made storage usage inefficient. My current specs are: AMD Ryzen™ 5 5600H (2.0–4.2GHz), 256GB SSD, 8GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050, 1 HDMI, USB-A 2.0, USB-A 3.0, and USB-C 3.1 ports.

M
MaddiBlake
Member
241
11-14-2022, 06:44 PM
#2
External SSD performance is constrained by USB speeds and competes for bandwidth with other USB devices... Sufficient for Linux, but less ideal on Windows. Consider SATA SSDs instead, as they are more affordable for large storage needs. You can install it anywhere, even on double-sided tape, if there’s no mounting bracket. SATA drives also require two cables—one for data and one for power.
M
MaddiBlake
11-14-2022, 06:44 PM #2

External SSD performance is constrained by USB speeds and competes for bandwidth with other USB devices... Sufficient for Linux, but less ideal on Windows. Consider SATA SSDs instead, as they are more affordable for large storage needs. You can install it anywhere, even on double-sided tape, if there’s no mounting bracket. SATA drives also require two cables—one for data and one for power.

S
Soccerstar827
Junior Member
18
11-15-2022, 12:18 AM
#3
It seems your device is limited to a 3.1 Gen1 model, which explains the high speed cap of around 500MBps.
S
Soccerstar827
11-15-2022, 12:18 AM #3

It seems your device is limited to a 3.1 Gen1 model, which explains the high speed cap of around 500MBps.

K
Kaldeo
Member
226
11-15-2022, 09:00 AM
#4
400MB/s is typical for 5Gbps USB. It matches SATA speeds and should work fine. Pairing it with 10Gbps ports will nearly double the capacity.
K
Kaldeo
11-15-2022, 09:00 AM #4

400MB/s is typical for 5Gbps USB. It matches SATA speeds and should work fine. Pairing it with 10Gbps ports will nearly double the capacity.

C
CyredZero
Junior Member
5
11-19-2022, 06:29 AM
#5
During my research, I believed USB Type-C 3.1 SS could be a 10Gbps connection. You're correct, it's only USB 3.1. Since there are no other devices connected, I didn't expect such low speeds. This situation makes an external M.2 drive unnecessary even though it might theoretically support higher speeds. Perhaps I should test if swapping it with an internal drive is possible. Thanks.
C
CyredZero
11-19-2022, 06:29 AM #5

During my research, I believed USB Type-C 3.1 SS could be a 10Gbps connection. You're correct, it's only USB 3.1. Since there are no other devices connected, I didn't expect such low speeds. This situation makes an external M.2 drive unnecessary even though it might theoretically support higher speeds. Perhaps I should test if swapping it with an internal drive is possible. Thanks.

N
naldo8
Junior Member
8
11-19-2022, 02:23 PM
#6
Hi anyone having a similar issue... this is how i solved it Manufacturers website... installed FW update for usb 3.2 Front USBC still rooted but back ones pump out a solid 1.6 GBps (12.8 Gbps) now (write caching on, flushing not disabled) the front ports were giving me around 400-500 MBps with the USB-C to A (3.1 "blue") Front USB C to C behaves like it's not plugged into the mobo properly, hanging and going slower than a 3.5" floppy at times. Anyway, Hope this helps ya's... got my super-fast SSD enclosure.
N
naldo8
11-19-2022, 02:23 PM #6

Hi anyone having a similar issue... this is how i solved it Manufacturers website... installed FW update for usb 3.2 Front USBC still rooted but back ones pump out a solid 1.6 GBps (12.8 Gbps) now (write caching on, flushing not disabled) the front ports were giving me around 400-500 MBps with the USB-C to A (3.1 "blue") Front USB C to C behaves like it's not plugged into the mobo properly, hanging and going slower than a 3.5" floppy at times. Anyway, Hope this helps ya's... got my super-fast SSD enclosure.