are these numbers normal for sabrent rocket 4 plus ?

Kol12 said:

Here is my Samsung 850 EVO (OS C:) with RAM Cache.
I'm not certain but RAMCache may only work with certain Asus motherboards. If you have a Samsung SSD you could try Rapid Mode which is supposed to work similarly to RAMCache.

I am using primocache with sabrent but numbers is lower than intel 660p

Kol12 said:

Do you see any boost with the Sabrent and primocache?

still testing

William40 said:

I have sabrent rocket 4 plus 2tb but I feal these numbers are low: (motherboard is tuf x570)

Attachment 320995

any solution ?

Um, which of these numbers do you feel is low? You are getting nearly 7GB on the read and 4.6GB on the write...which is right where the high end PCIE Gen 4 drives land.

What do you expect those numbers to be?

As a reference, here is my 2TB Western Digtial Black SN850 which is a very fast drive

pparks1 said:

Um, which of these numbers do you feel is low? You are getting nearly 7GB on the read and 4.6GB on the write...which is right where the high end PCIE Gen 4 drives land.

What do you expect those numbers to be?

As a reference, here is my 2TB Western Digtial Black SN850 which is a very fast drive

My previous intel 660p was getting higher numbers any way my numbers for seq1m are normal ? I find it much lower than the your wd black

So, first off the Intel 660p is a PCI Gen 3 drive...and that doesn't have the ability to get speeds nearly as high as your Sabrent is showing.

On the fastest of the Intel 660p, Intel lists the max sequential read and write speeds to be 1,800MB/sec
Intel(R) SSD 660p Series (2.0TB, M.2 80mm PCIe* 3.0 x4, 3D2, QLC) 149403

Generally speaking, I only use the top line in CrystalDiskMark to make sure that my drive is in the ballpark of its advertised speeds. For example, if the drive said it would provide up to 3400MB/sec and my drive tested anywhere from about 2800-3400...i wouldn't blink an eye. But if my test came back and showed 1100MB/sec....then I would start looking into why my drive was so far off.

Couple of things that come to mind in our testing here

• When I test a drive, like my SN850, I always do it with that drive running as a secondary drive on the system. It's never running with the OS on it. Obviously if the OS is performing tasks in the background, that will skew your numbers.
• I'm running a different version of CrystalDiskBenchmark (8) and you are on 7, so that might account for slightly different results
• I ran my tests 5 times and results are the average, you ran your test 1 time....so with a few more passes it might have averaged out higher.