0
I have a computer with two 970 Evo SSDs in RAID 0. When I run the default CrystalDiskMark settings, I see massively improved sequential write speeds from what's shown here for a single drive - from 2,500 MB/s to over 3300 MB/s. However, sequential read speeds stay the same or drop slightly, and the random speeds seem to take a significant hit - from 1500 to 1000, for instance.
What's more, I can get higher speeds in real-world applications, at least as measured by Task Manager. For instance, 3700 MB/s while scanning the hard drive with an antivirus program.
What's up here? If it makes any difference, the computer has an 8700k and 64 GB of DDR4 RAM, and is a laptop.
As a possibly helpful side note, my 950 Pro (a different hard drive) over Thunderbolt 3, gets 3200 MB/s write, which is a bit faster than the 2950 or so it gets in RAID with another 950 Pro! There seems to be little consistency.
Obie 2.0
Posted 2018-06-16T22:20:34.607
Reputation: 101
RAID 0 or RAID 1? – Ramhound – 2018-06-17T02:27:32.383
@Ramhound RAID 0 – Obie 2.0 – 2018-06-17T04:05:57.057
@Ramhound - If it makes a difference, it's BIOS RAID through Intel RST, rather than Storage Spaces or a dedicated RAID card or something. – Obie 2.0 – 2018-06-17T08:43:41.747
RAID 0 should have improved write and read performance at the cost of having any sort of disk redundancy. Looking at your screenshots, all your numbers are higher, then your single disk over thunderbolt. You can't compare a benchmark of a single disk that isn't in a RAID to your RAID performance though. Your 950 Pro is significantly faster drive by the way. – Ramhound – 2018-06-17T14:29:33.730
@Ramhound - No, the 950 Pro is supposed to be slower than a 970 Evo. Also, the point isn't to directly compare the 970 Evo RAID to the 950 Pro - I linked to a speed test that a site had run on a single 970 Evo. Some of my RAID 0 numbers are lower than the numbers they got on a single 970 Evo (though the sequential write speeds are much higher). – Obie 2.0 – 2018-06-17T18:31:10.390