![]() |
Low 4K scores for Taichi & 960 EVO |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 12> |
Author | |
GenesisDoes ![]() Newbie ![]() ![]() Joined: 10 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 12:07am |
Hey, I noticed that some people are getting low 4K scores for their 960 EVO when using the X370 Taichi. Here is my 960 Evo crystalmark score in Ultra M.2 slot: ![]() Now, here are other people's scores. Gigabyte X370 board with 960 EVO: ![]() ![]() 250GB 960 EVO: ![]() As you can see my 4K Q32T4 scores are quite low in comparison and other Taichi owners at overclocker forum also are having low scores with the 960EVO. I tried every Samsung driver and default Microsoft windows driver and it doesn't change the score higher. Maybe someone at ASRock can look into this? Edited by GenesisDoes - 28 Apr 2017 at 12:09am |
|
Taichi X370, Ryzen 1700 @ 4ghz, 32GB G.Skill TridentZ Ram, Samsung 960 EVO nvme, Intel 600P nvme, 2TB Seagate HDD, 2TB Hitachi HDD, 1TB Mushkin SSD, GTX 1080
|
|
![]() |
|
berner ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 23 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 23 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I do have the same Problem on my gaming k4 x370 ![]() Edited by berner - 28 Apr 2017 at 1:58am |
|
![]() |
|
GenesisDoes ![]() Newbie ![]() ![]() Joined: 10 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hmm, so it appears something with ASRock AMD motherboards and the 960 EVO not reaching full potential of speeds.
|
|
Taichi X370, Ryzen 1700 @ 4ghz, 32GB G.Skill TridentZ Ram, Samsung 960 EVO nvme, Intel 600P nvme, 2TB Seagate HDD, 2TB Hitachi HDD, 1TB Mushkin SSD, GTX 1080
|
|
![]() |
|
datonyb ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 11 Apr 2017 Location: London U.K. Status: Offline Points: 3139 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
[url=https://valid.x86.fr/jpg250]
![]() 3800X, powercolor reddevil vega64, gskill tridentz3866, taichix370, evga750watt gold |
|
![]() |
|
datonyb ![]() Senior Member ![]() Joined: 11 Apr 2017 Location: London U.K. Status: Offline Points: 3139 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
^while im very impressed with my evo 850 results on the sata connectors
i must say im a bit miffed that this nvme drive baerly outperforms it on 4k ^ ![]() |
|
[url=https://valid.x86.fr/jpg250]
![]() 3800X, powercolor reddevil vega64, gskill tridentz3866, taichix370, evga750watt gold |
|
![]() |
|
wardog ![]() Moderator Group ![]() Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If, if, IF, this an issue, it would be something AMD would need to correct for.
I say that to those of you here who know my style, I don't hold any ones water. Not ASRocks(ok, a little maybe ![]() Without knowing specific sata drivers, chipset "drivers', and processor, any "random' pic could be misread/misinterpreted. SATA speeds can be affected by soooo many things it is sometime hard to compare. |
|
![]() |
|
GenesisDoes ![]() Newbie ![]() ![]() Joined: 10 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
We're all using the same motherboard and various Ryzen processors (there's also 3-4 people on overclock forums in the Taichi X370 thread with the same issue). I used normal windows sata / chipset drivers and then did a benchmark. I installed AMD Ryzen chipset drivers and Samsung nvme drivers and did a benchmark. No matter what, it's a low 4K score.
|
|
Taichi X370, Ryzen 1700 @ 4ghz, 32GB G.Skill TridentZ Ram, Samsung 960 EVO nvme, Intel 600P nvme, 2TB Seagate HDD, 2TB Hitachi HDD, 1TB Mushkin SSD, GTX 1080
|
|
![]() |
|
berner ![]() Newbie ![]() Joined: 23 Apr 2017 Status: Offline Points: 23 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
also there doesn't seem to be a problem in this test done on a gigabyte board
|
|
![]() |
|
wardog ![]() Moderator Group ![]() Joined: 15 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 6447 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
That's a really sloppy test there on TweakTown. Mind you, ok, this "review' of theirs was published 03/06/2017 Did you see the CDM edition Ryzen was tested, 5.0.2, dates back to 07/27/2015? The CDM that Intel test was run on is 5.1.2, dated 02/02/2016. http://crystalmark.info/software/CrystalDiskMark/manual-en/History.html Never mind the test dates shown on the PCMark tests. Again, I'm not supporting either side. Show me a heads up test. |
|
![]() |
|
parsec ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Joined: 04 May 2015 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 4996 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Here's my 500GB 960 EVO in my ASRock X370 Killer SLI/AC board:
![]() Looking at a benchmark result does not begin to tell the whole story of how it was achieved. Yes, storage drive bench marking has its tricks and tweaks to get better results. We can get some clues regarding what some of the situation is by looking closely at each of the screenshots in this thread. First, if the drive being tested is the OS/Windows C: drive, the results will be lower than a non-OS drive. The benchmark program does not own the PC when it's running, so any IO done by Windows will interrupt the benchmark. Any non-OS drive will not have the benchmark interrupted by other IO. The second and third Crystal screenshots in the first post that are supposed to be from a Gigabyte X370 board, show the drive being tested were the D: and H: drives. Both not the C: OS drive, so the results will be better. The first screenshot has the drive information cut off, so no idea. All the other Crystal screenshots from ASRock boards in this thread are of the C:/OS drive. So not an identical comparison. Second, the 250GB EVO shown (third Gigabyte screenshot in the first post) which is overall exceptional (with a 50MB/s 4K read) shows 0/233GiB used. That is an empty, new SSD, which will always have great performance compared to a SSD that has been used. Empty is more important than new, but new also helps provide a better result. Next the things we cannot see: CPU OC, Memory OC, CPU power saving option settings, Windows Power Plan option settings, and Windows write cache buffer flushing setting. Do we know about any of these things in the superior benchmark results? No. How did I get the 60MB/s 4K Read speed? I disabled Cool n Quiet and C State support in the UEFI. Even though IO is not CPU intensive, the latency caused by the processor cores switching in and out of the high (C6) C State can be seen in benchmark results. I know it shows up with Intel systems and now I know the same is true for AMD Ryzen. Not a surprise. Gigabyte is (in)famous for setting their default UEFI/BIOS options to provide better performance when their mother boards are tested in reviews, with all default settings. Meaning CPU power saving options on Auto is really Disabled. My ASRock X370 board's UEFI and Cool and Quiet, C6 and Global C6 Support Enabled by default. I'm using the AMD Ryzen Balanced Power Plan, but this applies to any power plan. PCI Express Link State Power Management is set to Off. The Ultra M.2 slots use the PCIe lanes from the CPU, so any power saving on those will cause latency and slower speeds. I haven't tried the High Performance power plan, which I know gives the best benchmark results with Intel systems. I will say in general the 4K performance of any SSD seems to be lower with my Ryzen system than my Intel systems. Of course, Intel has had PCIe 3.0 M.2 support since their Z97 boards released in 2014. We are using the first AMD Ryzen NVMe Option ROMs in our board's UEFIs, which should be improved down the road. Here's one fully tricked benchmark of a 960 EVO on an Intel Z270 board: ![]() |
|
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |