Sloooow Samsung PM981 SSD Help!

[apache2223]

I have a 256GB Samsung PM981 SSD that is way too slow. I have the newest driver (version 3.1), but my Seq read and write speeds are horrible! (417.2 mbps and 396.6 mbps) Something is waaay wrong and I have no idea what it is. Write caching is enabled. I have a Gigabyte Z97-SLI mobo, with an i7 4790k, 16 GB of RAM and all drivers for everything are current. This is the first mobo I've had with so many settings in the BIOS, maybe I messed up in there?.....but I have done a factory reset and it is still the same, so idk what to do. Any ideas anyone? Thanks!

[schwellmo92]

How much free space does the SSD have? And what tool are you using for the benchmarking?

[Spakes]

55 minutes ago, apache2223 said:

Gigabyte Z97-SLI mobo, with an i7 4790k

This is where the problem lies. Native NVMe support comes only from 100 series of chipsets and above (or in other words, Skylake and newer).

W/o modified BIOS you are not going to get it working in NVMe mode and not SATA (which is interesting that it even works in SATA mode)...

[apache2223]

17 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

How much free space does the SSD have? And what tool are you using for the benchmarking?

Has 34GB of free space and using Crystal DiskMark 5. Just ran Samsung Magician and got the results in the pic.

[apache2223]

21 minutes ago, Spakes said:

This is where the problem lies. Native NVMe support comes only from 100 series of chipsets and above (or in other words, Skylake and newer).

W/o modified BIOS you are not going to get it working in NVMe mode and not SATA (which is interesting that it even works in SATA mode)...

Ok....and my mobo only supports Haswell and Broadwell.....that sucks!....lol. I also noticed on Samsung Magician it says PCIe Gen. 2 x 2. Does this have to do with what you were talking about?

[schwellmo92]

41 minutes ago, apache2223 said:

Ok....and my mobo only supports Haswell and Broadwell.....that sucks!....lol. I also noticed on Samsung Magician it says PCIe Gen. 2 x 2. Does this have to do with what you were talking about?

Ah yeah that would explain it if you only have 2 lanes of PCI-E 2.0 available. Each lane is 500MB/s so you have a total theoretical max of 1GB/s, so if you're getting around 850MB/s~ that is about right.

[apache2223]

16 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

Ah yeah that would explain it if you only have 2 lanes of PCI-E 2.0 available. Each lane is 500MB/s so you have a total theoretical max of 1GB/s, so if you're getting around 850MB/s~ that is about right.

I'm trying to learn about how PCI, SATA, etc work together, but it's confusing so far. And also setting up RAID in my BIOS is not easy for me. I probably need to learn what RAID is first...lol. I kinda know, but only parts of it. I don't know what "lanes" are yet as far as PCIe, but I did see a M.2 to PCIe 3.0 adapter on Amazon. I have a PCIe 3.0 x 8 slot empty. Would that work to get more speed?

[apache2223]

Also, since my current M.2 SSD is only running at PCIe 2 x 2 speed, would it be better to just run a regular SATA SSD on a SATA 3 connection?

[schwellmo92]

On 9/7/2019 at 4:35 PM, apache2223 said:

 but I did see a M.2 to PCIe 3.0 adapter on Amazon. I have a PCIe 3.0 x 8 slot empty. Would that work to get more speed?

Yes that would work as long as you have spare PCI-E lanes available, otherwise it may poach lanes from the GPU which may not be a problem anyway if you don’t have a high-end GPU. I honestly just would leave it as it is unless you desperately need that additional sequential performance and often copy individually large files.

[schwellmo92]

7 hours ago, apache2223 said:

Also, since my current M.2 SSD is only running at PCIe 2 x 2 speed, would it be better to just run a regular SATA SSD on a SATA 3 connection?

2 x 2.0 = 8Gbps

SATA 3 = 6Gbps

 

It’s still faster then SATA 3.

[apache2223]

16 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

Yes that would work as long as you have spare PCI-E lanes available, otherwise it may poach lanes from the GPU which may not be a problem anyway if you don’t have a high-end GPU. I honestly just would leave it as it is unless you desperately need that additional sequential performance and often copy individually large files.

I have a GTX 1050ti, so not great, but better than nothing I guess. And of course it also has the Intel HD Graphics 4600. I have both of them enabled. Not sure if I should just have the 1050 going by itself or what. I know more about taking things apart and putting them back together than specifics. And I really appreciate all your time and advice!

[schwellmo92]

21 minutes ago, apache2223 said:

I have a GTX 1050ti, so not great, but better than nothing I guess. And of course it also has the Intel HD Graphics 4600. I have both of them enabled. Not sure if I should just have the 1050 going by itself or what. I know more about taking things apart and putting them back together than specifics. And I really appreciate all your time and advice!

Ok then yeah an add-in card should allow your SSD to operate faster. Your graphics card would drop down to PCI-E 3.0 x8 but that is enough bandwidth for up to like a GTX 1080.

[apache2223]

On 9/7/2019 at 2:00 AM, Spakes said:

This is where the problem lies. Native NVMe support comes only from 100 series of chipsets and above (or in other words, Skylake and newer).

W/o modified BIOS you are not going to get it working in NVMe mode and not SATA (which is interesting that it even works in SATA mode)...

I forgot to tell you that the Gigabyte website says that the F7 BIOS update was for this:Support NVMe device. Improve M.2 compatibility. Is that what you meant by W/o modified BIOS  you are not going to get it working in NVMe mode? I have that update+3 more after it.

[apache2223]

On 9/8/2019 at 3:43 AM, schwellmo92 said:

2 x 2.0 = 8Gbps

SATA 3 = 6Gbps

 

It’s still faster then SATA 3.

Hello again! I noticed this when I was downloading some drivers for my mobo. Is this what you were talking about or is NvME different? Still trying to learn here...lol! Thanks again!

[schwellmo92]

18 hours ago, apache2223 said:

Hello again! I noticed this when I was downloading some drivers for my mobo. Is this what you were talking about or is NvME different? Still trying to learn here...lol! Thanks again!

I don’t really understand how they end up at 10Gb/s though but yes. As far as I’ve been able to find the M.2 on your board is a 2x2.0 which would mean 8Gb/s not 10Gb/s.

[apache2223]

On 9/20/2019 at 9:17 PM, schwellmo92 said:

I don’t really understand how they end up at 10Gb/s though but yes. As far as I’ve been able to find the M.2 on your board is a 2x2.0 which would mean 8Gb/s not 10Gb/s.

That is some MAJOR false advertising...lol! I wish I knew more about it so I could actually know what to research. Thanks again!

[Pickles von Brine]

You may need to install an NVME driver for your SSD just as an FYI and also Intel Rapid Storage Technology as well. I had a customer who's drive wasn't behaving till I do both. 

 

Edit:

Then again your drive appears to be working. That drive will only go to about 900MB/s read. 

[apache2223]

39 minutes ago, Lord Xeb said:

You may need to install an NVME driver for your SSD just as an FYI and also Intel Rapid Storage Technology as well. I had a customer who's drive wasn't behaving till I do both. 

 

Edit:

Then again your drive appears to be working. That drive will only go to about 900MB/s read. 

That's about what I am getting. I have the NvME and IRST drivers installed. So it's just not gonna go full speed on this board no matter how much I want it to eh?...lol. Would I be better off with something else like the SM 951 perhaps? Thanks!

[Pickles von Brine]

You may need to install an NVME driver for your SSD just as an FYI and also Intel Rapid Storage Technology as well. I had a customer who's drive wasn't behaving till I do both. 

 

You would need to go with a recent nvme ssd. That SSD max read speed is right what you are getting. So, it is running at max performance. Honestly, unless you are dealing with massive files or anything like that, do not worry it. The current SSD is awesome.