[SOLVED] SSD benchmark explanation

[paca5]

Hi. I am not understanding what the results mean when doing an ssd benchmark with Crystal Disc or AS ssd benchmark. Here's what I'm thinking and would really appreciate feedback on what I might do. Thanks.
I believe that I do not need a new ssd because my pc is running so well and all the components are running so cool, but I might buy a new ssd just because I want a new one. So I wonder if I would really benefit from an EVO 860 500g or WD Blue or even a lesser known ssd. And is it a waste of time cloning my PNY CS900 240GB 2.5" SATA III to a newer ssd.
I don't know if this is pertinent but I have: i5 8600 (non K); Aorus gtx 1660 Ti; EVGA 750 psu; H60 cooler; MSI Z370 sli plus mobo; 1080 p monitor. Thanks so much to anyone who reads this and has some input.
I apologize because I cannot find anywhere, how to insert my <as ssd benchmark> image which I saved on my computer. When I choose from here, "insert image" it shows that I need a URL, which I can't do because my image is on my computer. So I can only tell you that my READ is 480.12 with acc.time of 0.150ms. The WRITE is: 339.72 with acc.time of 308ms. The SCORE is 753. And I would appreciate an explanation of what <acc.time> means. I know that it's some sort of speed in doing something but that's all. I don't know what it's doing at these speeds. Thanks so much.
I have no problems with my pc, so am I wasting money spending $89. Canadian for EVO 860 or $84 for WD Blue, both 500 gb.
I must add that I have searched Google and youtube, but cannot find anyone who can explain what these numbers mean which is why I am posting here where I have found so much valuable information from very informative people. When searching, I do find others who benchmark their ssd's but all without explanation of what these numbers mean. Thanks again. Paca

 

[Darkbreeze]

While I don't normally reference userbenchmark as a source for specifications or performance, in this case it's a bit easier to show that while the "on paper" specs between the CS900 and the 860 EVO are a near match, in real world usage the reality is that the Samsung drive offers significantly better actual performance that comes a lot closer to it's paper spec than the PNY drive does. Not only do you gain consistently better performance by not filling the drive up as soon, it's somewhat faster as well.

https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/PNY-CS900-240GB-vs-Samsung-860-Evo-500GB/m180142vsm428560

As far as the AS SSD or Crystaldisk mark benchmarks go, that's nice, to see if a drive is playing in the range it should be, but it's not always indicative of what to actually expect.

The 860 EVO is a good purchase. A much better SSD than the PNY or the WD.

 

[rocktalkrock]

If you are going to buy a new SSD i would suggest you buy a newer M.2 NVMe drive, the WD SN500. They cost about the same as a Sata SSD.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omEm40cIsI0

 

[popatim]

As-SSD has 4 fields to help you gauge your drives performance.

1: Sequential is your drive's fastest transfer rates. This applies to sequential files which get written/read in whole. (500+ is common for modern Sata SSD's)

2: 4k. This is basically random access performance and is the slowest for drives. (score above 35read/80write are typical)

3: 4k-64 is random reads with 64 other requests waiting to process. Since 4k is slow a fast SSD can service multiple requests at the same time, this also tests the SSD's flash controllers performance as well as the flash memory itself. Common speed is roughly about 70-75% of sequential.

4: Acc Time. This is Access Time. How long it took the drive to be ready with the request. Read would be the drive ready to start sending the data and write would be the drive starting to take the data from the PC.



As for showing us your results, you need to host the image on an image sharing site and provide a link to it here.

 

[paca5]

If you are going to buy a new SSD i would suggest you buy a newer M.2 NVMe drive, the WD SN500. They cost about the same as a Sata SSD.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omEm40cIsI0

Thanks, but with my limited knowledge, I prefer to not go the m.2 route because it's easier to clone that it is to go into the bios and get lost. I also read the m.2 runs hot and ssd's don't. Thank again.

 

[paca5]

While I don't normally reference userbenchmark as a source for specifications or performance, in this case it's a bit easier to show that while the "on paper" specs between the CS900 and the 860 EVO are a near match, in real world usage the reality is that the Samsung drive offers significantly better actual performance that comes a lot closer to it's paper spec than the PNY drive does. Not only do you gain consistently better performance by not filling the drive up as soon, it's somewhat faster as well.

https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/PNY-CS900-240GB-vs-Samsung-860-Evo-500GB/m180142vsm428560

As far as the AS SSD or Crystaldisk mark benchmarks go, that's nice, to see if a drive is playing in the range it should be, but it's not always indicative of what to actually expect.

The 860 EVO is a good purchase. A much better SSD than the PNY or the WD.

Thanks so much for your knowledge. I'll probably get the EVO and then I will see exactly how much of a difference a new ssd makes over an older one.

 

[paca5]

As-SSD has 4 fields to help you gauge your drives performance.

1: Sequential is your drive's fastest transfer rates. This applies to sequential files which get written/read in whole. (500+ is common for modern Sata SSD's)

2: 4k. This is basically random access performance and is the slowest for drives. (score above 35read/80write are typical)

3: 4k-64 is random reads with 64 other requests waiting to process. Since 4k is slow a fast SSD can service multiple requests at the same time, this also tests the SSD's flash controllers performance as well as the flash memory itself. Common speed is roughly about 70-75% of sequential.

4: Acc Time. This is Access Time. How long it took the drive to be ready with the request. Read would be the drive ready to start sending the data and write would be the drive starting to take the data from the PC.



As for showing us your results, you need to host the image on an image sharing site and provide a link to it here.

Thank you. It's so much appreciated to finally know what the benchmark results really mean. I knew that someone here would finally explain what it all means. Great answer. As I told "Darkbreeze", I'll end up going with the EVO. I've read nothing but good things on it.

 

[Darkbreeze]

It doesn't make a terrific difference in normal, random use. You'll probably see SOME differences. Might be slightly "peppier" than before. You'll also likely see SOME difference in sequential transfer speeds IF the drive you are writing to or from is fast as well. If you are writing to or from a hard drive, then no matter what speed your SSD is you will be limited by the speed of the slower drive no matter what and there won't BE any difference. If this is the ONLY drive, then it's irrelevant because you wouldn't be writing to or from anything most likely. If you write to or from a flash drive, you'll be limited by the speed of the flash drive.