Intel 520 not getting advertised speeds.

[idata]

I'm not getting the advertised speeds of max sequential read up to 550 MB/s and max sequential write up to 500 MB/s. I'm only getting 487.93 MB/s read and 171.75 MB/s write. I'm using it in an Acer Aspire 5750-6414 notebook.

[idata]

Ok I tried the ATTO Disk Benchmark and I guess the numbers look right?

[DShar11]

Now you see what a quagmire all these bench numbers are. It really depends upon which controller your drive has and what test you run.

But they all show good in Atto. It is no mistake that is what all the oem;s use.

[idata]

Sadly Intel chose to publish performance specifications based on a fresh "out the box" state, compounded by benchmark results that use 0 fill/ highly compressible data.

Performance drops once the drive is in a steady (i.e. normal) used state and if the data can't be highly compressed performance will also drop significantly.

For some strange reason Intel chose to not publish performance specifications in accordance to SNIA standard of assessment, which ironically Intel had an active part in developing.

Published specs are therefore disingenuous, as are the claims Intel make about the compressibility of typical data.

[DShar11]

Are you using the Intel Toolbox?

It has a scheduler there for drive optimizer that should keep your drive in great shape. If you are in a single drive config.

[idata]

I understand what you are saying, but which SSD manufactures uses SNIA standards and results for their marketing "specs"? As you well know, all the SandForce clone SSD manufactures simply reprint the standard SandForce marketing numbers of "550 MBs read, 500MBs write". Can you imagine any SSD manufacture trying to market their products using real results, versus the standard SandForce stamp of one number read and write performance? Intel is not just selling SSDs to you, they would like to sell them to everybody, right?

Since the closest we get to enforcing any standards about SSD performance are the synthetic test results printed in SSD reviews, how can any company go far out into left field with results that appear "slower" and compete in the marketplace? Ask the average PC enthusiast which SSD they would rather have, an Intel 510 (yes 510), or an OCZ Vertex 3? You know the answer to that, and Intel knows how many sales they lost due to their more honest specs with the 510's, and the synthetic benchmark tests on a clean SSD, compared to the same testing results from the OCZ V3. More real world test results like those created by and performed at Anandtech tell a different story, but they aren't printed on page one of the review. They also take effort to understand. In the end, what wins?

To die poor with dignity, or live rich with shame, that is the question...

I salute your integrity, but ya gotta live.