4x 16GB STT MasterDrive PX SSD @ ARC1231/ASR5805/HRR3520/ICH10R

[One_Hertz]

4x ocz core should perform at no less than 572MB/s no reason it shouldnt unless no full support

V2 will do 572 (~576), V1 will not. And you dont actually have 700+mb/s anything with 4 drives, the benchmarks are getting fooled by the extreme cache, pcmark especially. The real speeds of the 5805 and the arc1231 are the same.

[NapalmV5]

V2 will do 572 (~576), V1 will not. And you dont actually have 700+mb/s anything with 4 drives, the benchmarks are getting fooled by the extreme cache, pcmark especially. The real speeds of the 5805 and the arc1231 are the same.

dont let the cache fool you.. certainly doesnt fool me.. within 2GB thats the performance i get.. past 2GB read about the same.. write probably @ 700MB/s

heres 4x @ 1231


ssds are not hdds

if controller sports full support/functions no reason if 1x @ 150MB/s why 4x shouldnt do 600MB/s


6x @ hrr3520 256MB = 777MB/s
6x @ asr5805 512MB = 637MB/s

how you explain that One_Hertz?? hmm?

[One_Hertz]

dont let the cache fool you.. certainly doesnt fool me.. within 2GB thats the performance i get.. past 2GB read about the same.. write probably @ 700MB/s

heres 4x @ 1231


ssds are not hdds

if controller sports full support/functions no reason if 1x @ 150MB/s why 4x shouldnt do 600MB/s


6x @ hrr3520 256MB = 777MB/s
6x @ asr5805 512MB = 637MB/s

how you explain that One_Hertz?? hmm?

I dont understand what you are saying... I thought you had 4 drives not 6 and all the 700+mb/s benchies are with 4 drives? I see 64gb there so 4 drives? 4x should indeed do 600, but not the 700 or 800 you are seeing. If thats 6x then sure; if its 4x then the benchmarks are false. All controllers send the same ATA read command to the drive and they can't mystically speed them up to be faster than the manufacturer's maximum specs.

[NapalmV5]

thank you for taking the time to do all these benches with the different controllers NapalmV5!

Soon running 4x of these drives will approach the speeds of running things directly in ram

your welcome..

I dont understand what you are saying... I thought you had 4 drives not 6 and all the 700+mb/s benchies are with 4 drives? I see 64gb there so 4 drives? 4x should indeed do 600, but not the 700 or 800 you are seeing. If thats 6x then sure; if its 4x then the benchmarks are false. All controllers send the same ATA read command to the drive and they can't mystically speed them up to be faster than the manufacturer's maximum specs.

great here i go again.. confusing the crap outta people

youre twisting that this could be 6x instead of 4x?.. unbelievable

this thread is all about 4x.. removed the 2x since it takes alot of time to do all this.. i wish i could edit the title i cant.. i didnt include any 6x in the thread.. all 4x = 64GB

4x false ? right cause im the one posting all this it must be false.. thanks alot!

manufacturer spec for the masterdrive px is 170/130 read/write

whose to say thats the limit? they probably were conservative or they upgraded their px line

p serial # performing @ 40MB/s read higher than r serial #

why is 1x @ 188MB/s read on the arc1210 which is only 256MB ??

again, how you explain that mr. One_Hertz ??

of course again you wont..

[One_Hertz]

your welcome..



great here i go again.. confusing the crap outta people

youre twisting that this could be 6x instead of 4x?.. unbelievable

this thread is all about 4x.. removed the 2x since it takes alot of time to do all this.. i wish i could edit the title i cant.. i didnt include any 6x in the thread.. all 4x = 64GB

4x false ? right cause im the one posting all this it must be false.. thanks alot!

manufacturer spec for the masterdrive px is 170/130 read/write

whose to say thats the limit? they probably were conservative or they upgraded their px line

p serial # performing @ 40MB/s read higher than r serial #

why is 1x @ 188MB/s read on the arc1210 which is only 256MB ??

again, how you explain that mr. One_Hertz ??

of course again you wont..

You are the one with the 6x comment that I quoted before (that you edited out now). That is the only place i took 6 drives from.

I really don't want to burst your bubble but I can bet any amount of money that you are not seeing 209MB/s sequential writes from each of your drives, like one of your benchies shows. 188mb/s reads is closer to reality, but still not real. If you know the first thing about SSDs you will realize how absurd it is to claim that your drives are able to write at faster speeds than to read. Unfortunately I do not think you do. The writes you are showing are a good deal faster than the Intel SLC drive. Manufacturers are not idiots and will not under rate their drives. Whatever controller you put on there will still be limited by how quickly the drive performs the operations sent to it; that part never changes.

Open your eyes. 600-650 seq reads and 500-550 seq writes is the best you can possibly see from 4 of those drives, regardless what you hook them up to.

[NapalmV5]

Nice testing Napalm! Thx for sharing the results

A bit surprised at the Adaptec 5805's performance compared to the Areca1231

thanks.. youre welcome

You are the one with the 6x comment that I quoted before (that you edited out now). That is the only place i took 6 drives from.

I really don't want to burst your bubble but I can bet any amount of money that you are not seeing 209MB/s sequential writes from each of your drives, like one of your benchies shows. 188mb/s reads is closer to reality, but still not real. If you know the first thing about SSDs you will realize how absurd it is to claim that your drives are able to write at faster speeds than to read. Unfortunately I do not think you do. The writes you are showing are a good deal faster than the Intel SLC drive. Manufacturers are not idiots and will not under rate their drives. Whatever controller you put on there will still be limited by how quickly the drive performs the operations sent to it; that part never changes.

Open your eyes. 600-650 seq reads and 500-550 seq writes is the best you can possibly see from 4 of those drives, regardless what you hook them up to.

you really trying to get on my nerves arent you?

i havent edited out anything.. still there.. why are you making sheet up?

you got beef with me? for whatever reason? i certainly dont have any with you.. pm me and lets go over any beef you got with me.. or if you prefer.. this thread will do..


1x @ 1210


1x @ 1231 - ignore the cache spike whatever and thats more like 188MB/s since the marker is below the 200 line and not above it


4x @ 1231 - ignore the cache spike whatever and thats more like 750/just below 750MB/s


its best to look at the whole picture not just numbers.. etc..

[One_Hertz]

you really trying to get on my nerves arent you?

i havent edited out anything.. still there.. why are you making sheet up?

you got beef with me? for whatever reason? i certainly dont have any with you.. pm me and lets go over any beef you got with me.. or if you prefer.. this thread will do..

No beef at all, just wanted to clarify for all the people watching that a controller doesnt add 100+mb/s to seq reads. And I have never mentioned that you edited anything or that you were lieing. HDTach is a worthless benchmark that simply doesnt work for raid configs. Apparently nobody told you that over the past few years that has been a very well known fact. Run iometer 100% seq reads with your array filled up to the max by the test file for about 15-20minutes to see another view...


To illustrate my point: