Are these healthy scores for an 120gb sad [SSD]?

[benzoeu]

Not really got the knowledge on the subject so wondering if anyone can tell me if this [strike]sad[/strike] SSD is okay? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwuX8PHHUu5nb2lleGM5UU8tMk0

 

[CountMike]

No not really. Writing score is about half it should be.

 

[USAFRet]

No, that's pretty bad.
This, from one of my SSD's. Sandisk UltraII 960GB

 

[COLGeek]

I can't view attachment. However, just a couple questions.

Is the SSD connected to a SATA III port? Also, have you verified your SATA mode is AHCI?

 

[USAFRet]

For others that can't view the OP's link, this:

 

[RetiredChief]

Generally poor performance is hardware based, ie MB config and set-up of SSD
MB Config Should be Sata III controller and set to AHCI
For SSD set up see:
https://www.partitionwizard.com/partitionmanager/how-to...
and https://www.auslogics.com/en/articles/ssd-tweaks-to-inc...

General Info:
Seq Performance: Not as Important as 4 K. Boot time is primarily a function of the 4K random reads (majority of files on OS drive are under 32K). Seq read/writes become important when working with LARGE files such as Video. Most SSDs preform about the same for Seq (That is you will not see much diff between Good and Excellent SSDs OUTSIDE of bench marks). Random read/writes can me much better in the Better SSDs and depends on the type of Cells used (Single layer (Best, but EXPENSIVE), MLC, TLC)
Myself: I look for 500+ for Seq read/writes and >30 for 4K Random reads.
Have 4 laptops and 3 Desktops, all with OS SSDs (My Main Desktop has 3 SSDs, all dif sizes and brands and There is NOT a nickels worth of difference in performance. Also have 5 SSDs as Spare/backups. My SSDs date all the way back to Intel's Whopping 80 Gig (And cost more than my 500 gig SSDs.