# Post your CrystalDiskMark results



## Ethan3.14159

Now that more people here are getting high performance SSDs and HDD's we should see how well they perform.

Post your CrystalDiskMark results with a description of the drive(s) with your username. Download Windows version *HERE*.

*PLEASE READ:* Make sure you run CrystalDiskMark in '0Fill' mode, otherwise the write speeds will be way off.

Here's mine.


----------



## Shane

My 3 drives.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Try running it in '0Fill' mode. That should fix the write speeds.


----------



## jevery

.
.
Interesting....Wonder why the big differences in the 4K QD32 speeds.
.


----------



## Shane

Ethan3.14159 said:


> Try running it in '0Fill' mode. That should fix the write speeds.



Ah done..il change my shot above


----------



## Bodaggit23

Interesting results you guys got from the same drive, no?


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Bodaggit23 said:


> Interesting results you guys got from the same drive, no?


I realized I had the wrong BIOS settings for my SSD. It was running in standard IDE mode, and when I enabled AHCI and edited the registry my speeds increased heaps.

I've edited my first post with the new results.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Ethan3.14159 said:


> I realized I had the wrong BIOS settings for my SSD. It was running in standard IDE mode, and when I enabled AHCI and edited the registry my speeds increased heaps.



What did you edit in the registry?


----------



## linkin

Meh.


----------



## clahman

hoots mon


----------



## Shane

Everyone's benchmarking at different settings :/


----------



## bomberboysk

Atto is a better disc benchmark, crystal is pretty unpredictable.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Nevakonaza said:


> Everyone's benchmarking at different settings :/


So far only 1 person has used the wrong settings. I added the correct mode to run the benchmark to the first post.



bomberboysk said:


> Atto is a better disc benchmark, crystal is pretty unpredictable.


Never tried it. Maybe you should start a thread for it like the 3DMark and SuperPi threads.


----------



## Shane

Ethan3.14159 said:


> So far only 1 person has used the wrong settings. I added the correct mode to run the benchmark to the first post.



jevery + linkin ran it in "5" next to the 1000mb check box,while me and you ran it in "2".


----------



## bomberboysk

Ethan3.14159 said:


> So far only 1 person has used the wrong settings. I added the correct mode to run the benchmark to the first post.
> 
> 
> Never tried it. Maybe you should start a thread for it like the 3DMark and SuperPi threads.



Eh, Atto runs something like 20 tests of different filesizes, reporting results for each one. Trying to create a ranking thread for that would be...hectic to say the least


----------



## Ethan3.14159

Nevakonaza said:


> jevery + linkin ran it in "5" next to the 1000mb check box,while me and you ran it in "2".


Ahh yeah, that's just the number of runs for each test.


----------



## garyhope

*CrystalDiskMark scores, which is better lower or higher?*

Please excuse my dumb noob question about the CrystalDiskMark scores.  I couldn't find much info about the scores and set ups etc.

Which is better, higher numbers or lower?

I did manage to test my old Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive and got these numbers.  They seem kind of low.  Is that correct?  Should they be higher?

I'm thinking of getting a new Western Digital Caviar Black WD5001AALS 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive to use with my current system or with a new 1155 Sandy Bridge build.  Eventually I'll get an SSD for a boot and app drive.  Thanks all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

           Sequential Read :    53.765 MB/s
          Sequential Write :    48.426 MB/s
         Random Read 512KB :    22.689 MB/s
        Random Write 512KB :    16.232 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :     0.145 MB/s [    35.3 IOPS]
   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :     1.704 MB/s [   416.0 IOPS]
   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :     0.775 MB/s [   189.3 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :     1.732 MB/s [   422.9 IOPS]

  Test : 50 MB [C: 13.2% (30.8/232.9 GB)] (x5) <All 0x00, 0Fill>
  Date : 2011/01/28 0:06:57
    OS : Windows XP Professional SP3 [5.1 Build 2600] (x86)


----------



## kopper

Thanks for posting your results guys, very helpful when diagnosing and you want to compare results.

After reading some of the SSD results I think it is time for an upgrade.

Initially I was getting Seq write speeds of around 35MB/s.  I looked into it and found my partition alignment was out, despite only recently being a fresh install of Win7-64bit.

After doing a bit of reading, I upgraded the firmware on my SSD, enabled AHCI support and did a clean install, which also fixed the alignment.  Im now getting the below results, which arent too bad, but some of those numbers are much smaller than other SSD's that have been listed.

Im not sure how much those bottom numbers will impact performance, but Ill stick a new SSD drive in and find out.

garyhope, the higher the numbers the better.


----------



## voyagerfan99




----------



## Coolhand

*bam*



Samsung EVO 840 240GB


----------



## voyagerfan99

Woo old thread bump. I can't believe I had that much crap on my desktop back then.


----------



## Oscarokami

hi. i dunno if i did the correct settings. kinda new to all these.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 5.1.2 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes

   Sequential Read (Q= 64,T= 1) :  5714.356 MB/s
  Sequential Write (Q= 64,T= 1) :   186.382 MB/s
  Random Read 4KiB (Q= 64,T= 1) :  1173.168 MB/s [286418.0 IOPS]
 Random Write 4KiB (Q= 64,T= 1) :   172.452 MB/s [ 42102.5 IOPS]
         Sequential Read (T= 1) :  5469.049 MB/s
        Sequential Write (T= 1) :   178.894 MB/s
   Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :   608.876 MB/s [148651.4 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) :    88.720 MB/s [ 21660.2 IOPS]

  Test : 1024 MiB [C: 23.7% (35.6/150.0 GiB)] (x5) <0Fill> [Interval=3 sec]
  Date : 2016/06/30 22:55:10
    OS : Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)


----------



## Alan Naylor

How are my results?


----------



## Darren

Alan Naylor said:


> How are my results?


Try this thread instead, more results and considered our official thread. I'm going to go ahead and lock this one to prevent confusion.

http://www.computerforum.com/threads/hdd-ssd-drive-speed-thread.224966/


----------

