The BlacX SATA to USB converter may be a SATA-II internally. SATA to USB conversions (and vice versa) presumably involves overhead and thus would reduce performance compared to native SATA connection. I guess I'm going to be in the "ignore the benches" crowd for the most part. For some reason those benchmarks seem much more common on Macintosh forums lately. I actually haven't seen alot of x79 motherboards with USB3 speed tested. So is there some factor that explains why crystal disk is performing so low in these USB3 benches, while SiSoft is showing good numbers? Could it be some artifact with the USB3 on the x79 chipset? The only thing I have found which supports this theory is this x79 mobo review where the USB3 transfer speeds were really low, about what mine are: Around double the number CrystalDisk is giving me, and much more in line with what I expected out of USB3 and an SSD. Interestingly, that test gave me a read result of 280 MB/s. I ran it only using the GTX and Silverstone RVS02 enclosure.
So I also ran the SiSoftware Physical Disk benchmark. Well its not quite as fast as my 830 for reads but beats in a few other categories (I forgot to take a screenshot of the 830 benchmark and I am trying to not over-benchmark that one as its my OS drive). So the drive itself is definitely performing great, about what I expect.
0 kommentar(er)
