Two 950's in R0

My best score to date. Didn't hurt that my chip was at 4.9 

Hello Parsec.

Edited by DooRules - 12 Dec 2015 at 5:26pm

That's great! Thanks for your answers.

A bit odd how it started out slow and then increased like crazy, usually I see the opposite, always dropping off at the end or midway.

I've seen some 950 Pro users say they "feel" no difference between their 950 and good SATA SSDs. My Win 10 cold startup after the POST beep seems almost instant, while my SanDisk Extreme Pros take about three seconds.

Driver and software installation is super fast, and things like copying my Windows installation driver and software collections of ~1.5GB in one folder, to a backup SSD (zero HDDs in my PCs ), is subjectively instant, I don't see the Windows file copy dialog box appear at all.

I think we are seeing the limitations of the Windows file system code, which was designed for HDDs, being at least part of the limitation of perceived and actual performance of all high end SSDs.


Edited by parsec - 14 Dec 2015 at 11:12pm

I recall a forum post I read, where the guy was unhappy with the need for the "stupid TRIM" command for SSDs.

TRIM is a work around for the current way something in the Windows file system (NTFS?) was designed when only HDDs, floppy disks, and apparently USB flash drives existed. For HDDs, when files are deleted, all that is done is the space that was used by the files (LBAs) are put on the available list. An HDD happily overwrites itself if told to do so. SSDs, no.

This unseen and unknown quirk of NAND storage that came after magnetic drives, which are the basis for computer storage IO software, is only one of the things that is not optimal for flash storage. It seems to me that the magnetic storage user base in businesses and governments alone will prevent any change to HDD oriented storage system software for quite a while.

Meanwhile, NAND flash storage is evolving (PCIe SSDs, NVMe, M.2), and an apparent successor from Intel/Micron is on the horizon.

Microsocialist's one OS for every device and person will impede progress in a different way. You cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time with one "thing", but if the number of people that are satisfied with that one thing is large enough, the rest of us will be ignored.

The truly first portable PC (smart phones) has become that one thing IMO.

IMO, we are lucky that we (still) have what we have now, and that it works well, if not optimally. Not that I disagree with you Xaltar at all, I don't. I just hope we don't lose it soon.

parsec wrote: IMO, we are lucky that we (still) have what we have now, and that it works well, if not optimally. Not that I disagree with you Xaltar at all, I don't. I just hope we don't lose it soon.