Is the onboard Marvell SE9128 really *THIS* bad?

[groberts101]

Avg SSD to Super Fast SSD = No real noticeable difference unless benchmarking

unless of course you have a fast enough storage volume to make use of the faster SSD. Most don't.. and miss the full effect possible.

 

[wpcoe]

FWIW, here's another benchmark comparison:

 

[wpcoe]

I know I tend to ramble a bit too much at times, but I tried to tell you. And now that means I have to fall back on the old "I told ya so" here.


Oh well.. you didn't spend an arm and a leg and your better off then you were. Hey.. at least you didn't try to raid SSD's off that chip! That woulda had you really upset.

Yabut... I actually DID understand you, but was hoping that Orico had their facts straight and that it was PCIe 2.0 x2. Had it been x2, I think I would have seen the desired result.

A casualty in the process: the old Kingston SSD became unreliable. No longer recognized by Intel chipset SATA, sometimes recognized by the PCIe card SATA, usually recognized by onboard Marvell SATA, but sometimes disappearing in Windows after a while. The Kingston was reliable until I deleted all partitions. It then immediately caused Windows to blue screen, and ever since then it has been flaky as described above, even after recreating data partitions on it. Last month SSD Life said the Kingston only had a few more months remaining. Maybe it was right?