Why different speed of ssd on win98 ?

[seam]

i using Ocz Vertex 30G on win98 & winflp(xp core).

just testing SSD speed by crystalmark.

why different speed on same hw config. THX A LOT~

FLP(XP CORE)

SequentialRead 196.06 MB/s (5921)

SequentialWrite 135.24 MB/s (4704)

RandomRead512K 156.96 MB/s (5139)

RandomWrite512K 123.11 MB/s (4462)

RandomRead 4K 119.50 MB/s (4390)

RandomWrite 4K 72.49 MB/s (2899)

98

SequentialRead 153.15 MB/s (5063)

SequentialWrite 137.62 MB/s (4752)

RandomRead512K 136.04 MB/s (4720)

RandomWrite512K 108.83 MB/s (4176)

RandomRead 4K 118.51 MB/s (4370)

RandomWrite 4K 74.83 MB/s (2993)

[sp193]

i using Ocz Vertex 30G on win98 & winflp(xp core).

just testing SSD speed by crystalmark.

why different speed on same hw config. THX A LOT~

I think it's because Windows XP does cache some read and writes - even if you "disabled" them (Feels like that, since I did catch Windows XP doing write-behind caching on drives that have that option disabled... and caused data lost when I unplugged the disk without "Safely removing" the device.).

Windows 9x does not do write caching, and you need to enable that option yourself (But don't, since it can cause problems if you don't disconnect your disks properly).

It could also be your USB drivers... since Windows 9x uses different drivers from Windows XP (Even if they were from WinXP, they may be older).

Since I'm a little rusty on my Windows 9x knowledge (Since I had to change my PC)... someone please add on/correct me if I'm wrong.

[dencorso]

Welcome to MSFN, seam!

why different speed on same hw config?

Because they are different OSes, having different architecture and using different drivers. So, its not surprising... on the contrary, it is to be expected. And it's not at all dependent on what kind of device one is using, of course. See, below, the results for a Gigabyte i-Ram (Hardware DDR RAM Disk), using CrystalDiskMark 2.2:

 GB i-RAM 1.5GiB (Win 98 SE)
--------------------------------------------------
 Sequential Read * :  122.069 MB/s
Sequential Write * :  120.388 MB/s
 Random Read 512KB :  115.096 MB/s
Random Write 512KB :  119.392 MB/s
   Random Read 4KB :   44.253 MB/s
  Random Write 4KB :   41.041 MB/s

        *Test Size : 100 MB

GB i-RAM 1.5GiB (Win XP SP3)
--------------------------------------------------
 Sequential Read * :  132.878 MB/s
Sequential Write * :  126.182 MB/s
 Random Read 512KB :  132.886 MB/s
Random Write 512KB :  125.808 MB/s
   Random Read 4KB :   58.625 MB/s
  Random Write 4KB :   51.699 MB/s

        *Test Size : 100 MB

I don't think caching has much influence on those results... However, for the record, I've disabled write-behind caching on all drives, the GB i-RAM included, so (up to the point each OS allows one to disable caching), my tests were done without caching. And, to my eyes, the results for both drives are not so different to justify postulating different caching as the reason for the difference.

[seam]

Welcome to MSFN, seam!

thank a lot.