ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > AMD Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Low 4K scores for Taichi & 960 EVO
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search Search  Events   Register Register  Login Login

Low 4K scores for Taichi & 960 EVO

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
GenesisDoes View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GenesisDoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Low 4K scores for Taichi & 960 EVO
    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
Back to Top
berner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote berner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 1:28am
I do have the same Problem on my gaming k4 x370


Edited by berner - 28 Apr 2017 at 1:58am
Back to Top
GenesisDoes View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GenesisDoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 2:21am
Originally posted by berner berner wrote:

I do have the same Problem on my gaming k4 x370

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
Back to Top
datonyb View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2017
Location: London U.K.
Status: Offline
Points: 3139
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote datonyb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 3:26am
here is my scores with a taichi x370 bios version 2 and using samsung drivers

evo 850 500gb sata left        evo 960 256gb nvme on right



[url=https://valid.x86.fr/jpg250][/url]

3800X, powercolor reddevil vega64, gskill tridentz3866, taichix370, evga750watt gold
Back to Top
datonyb View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2017
Location: London U.K.
Status: Offline
Points: 3139
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote datonyb Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 3:35am
^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 ^


Thumbs Down
[url=https://valid.x86.fr/jpg250][/url]

3800X, powercolor reddevil vega64, gskill tridentz3866, taichix370, evga750watt gold
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 4:08am
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 Tongue ) nor any ones. In my book, wrong is wrong.


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.
Back to Top
GenesisDoes View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GenesisDoes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 4:26am
Originally posted by wardog wardog wrote:

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 Tongue ) nor any ones. In my book, wrong is wrong.


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.

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
Back to Top
berner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote berner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 4:34am
also there doesn't seem to be a problem in this test done on a gigabyte board
Back to Top
wardog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 6447
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wardog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 11:23am
Originally posted by berner berner wrote:

also there doesn't seem to be a problem in this test done on a gigabyte board


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.






Back to Top
parsec View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2015
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4996
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote parsec Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Apr 2017 at 1:46pm
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:


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.