o76ker
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:30
七到八倍的写入差距
4pqcxor
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:30
这么看金士顿的pcie完全够用了，我是一个750一个金士顿，从金士顿往750复制1.2g没问题，反向在1.1左右，金士顿便宜，而且装系统容易，750装7实在太费劲了
mlrs1g9c
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:31
愿闻详情，怎么出问题的？
r8mttg1g
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:31
打开osd屏显，话说ssd够多啊
w2krs5
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:31
英特尔750？PCIE接口速度充分发挥了！
i0x8qiv
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:32
理论上750直接能到达2G/s，拷到ramdisk可以达到这个速度。750拷750，肯定只能到读写中比较低的那个数值了…
过几天950 pro到了试试看效能如何
vwv1xu4
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:32
Z170和X99肯定没问题，其他的板子就要看厂商的态度了，官网应该可以找到相关说明。
0e724g
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:32
土豪的速度啊。。
只有羡慕的份了。。。
口水。。。。
PS。小文件的速度看起来不是高呢。。
w2psz4v
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:33
zhizunbao 于 2015-11-8 09:36 编辑
第一次打别人脸，图片引用自隔壁浴大。随便引用别人的图不太好，还是删掉。
原帖地址：
http://bbs.pceva.com.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=121185&page=1&authorid=4
这张是我自己的图，请问“p3700 4k比你这个快多了”体现在哪里呢？
/data/attachment/forum/201511/08/083828wd33heoiw9paed31.jpg
ghhyzus
发表于 2016-3-29 19:06:33
allenxml 于 2015-11-8 09:25 编辑
Once we started exploring IO consistency, nearly all SSD manufacturers made a move to improve consistency and for the 2015 suite, I haven't made any significant changes to the methodology we use to test IO consistency. The biggest change is the move from VDBench to Iometer 1.1.0 as the benchmarking software and I've also extended the test from 2000 seconds to a full hour to ensure that all drives hit steady-state during the test.
For better readability, I now provide bar graphs with the first one being an average IOPS of the last 400 seconds and the second graph displaying the standard deviation during the same period. Average IOPS provides a quick look into overall performance, but it can easily hide bad consistency, so looking at standard deviation is necessary for a complete look into consistency.
I'm still providing the same scatter graphs too, of course. However, I decided to dump the logarithmic graphs and go linear-only since logarithmic graphs aren't as accurate and can be hard to interpret for those who aren't familiar with them. I provide two graphs: one that includes the whole duration of the test and another that focuses on the last 400 seconds of the test to get a better scope into steady-state performance.
/data/attachment/forum/201511/08/090749h2t669kr29erkuk2.png
Given the higher over-provisioning and an enterprise-oriented controller, it's no surprise that the SSD 750 has excellent steady-state random write performance.
/data/attachment/forum/201511/08/090910xz4zzezetojbmqst.png
The consistency is also very good, although the SSD 750 can't beat the 850 Pro if just focusing on consistency. When considering that the SSD 750 provides nearly three times the performance, it's clear that the SSD 750 is better out of the two.
/data/attachment/forum/201511/08/090929q3ilil3621mxcmgg.png
At the initial cliff the performance drops to around 15K IOPS, but it quickly rises and seems to even out at about 22-23K IOPS. It actually takes nearly an hour for the SSD 750 to reach steady-state, which isn't uncommon for such a large drive but it's still notable.
I couldn't run tests with added over-provisioning because NVMe drives don't support the usual ATA commands that I use to limit the LBA of the drive. There is similar command set for NVMe as well, but I'm still trying to figure out how to use them as there's isn't too much public info about NVMe tools.
/data/attachment/forum/201511/08/090946adm2p29v9nxb5pmb.png
以上内容转自AnandTech，2.2W的Steady-State 4k IOPS random write 与intel p3700 2TB的17W IOPS怎么能是一个级别呢？看人家评测要看仔细一点啊，下面这条里面已经说明原因了。
/data/attachment/forum/201511/08/091615szf25e6991cf9e2f.png
再给你加个我自己测试的帖子
/thread-1313467-1-1.html单论峰值也不是750能比的，AS SSD只不过是SSD评测届中的鲁大师而已，根本跑不满。