How AS SSD Benchmark Assists In Identifying False Advertised Speed Claims
To verify a drive’s actual throughput, immediately run a sustained write test spanning its entire cache region and observe performance after the buffer is full. A unit may report a sequential write speed of 3500 MB/s for a brief 10-15 second burst, but this figure is meaningless if it plummets to 150 MB/s under a constant, heavy workload. The utility performs this exact analysis, graphing the transfer rate over time to reveal the precise moment the SLC or DRAM cache exhausts itself and performance collapses to the native NAND speed.
Real-world operation depends on low queue depth random access, not just high queue depth sequential transfers. Manufacturers often highlight 4K read performance at QD32, a scenario typical of server environments. For a desktop user, random 4K reads at QD1 are far more relevant, where a score below 20 MB/s indicates noticeable system lag during multitasking, despite what the advertised “up to” speeds might suggest. The software’s Access Time score, measured in microseconds, is a critical, often overlooked metric for daily responsiveness.
Compare the results from the tool’s compression benchmark against its default incompressible data test. Some controllers utilize data compression to artificially inflate transfer rates with easily compressible files. When presented with completely random, incompressible data–simulating media files and archives–the reported throughput can drop by over 40%. This discrepancy exposes controllers that rely on this trick, providing a more honest assessment of performance with typical user data.
How AS SSD Benchmark Detects False Advertised SSD Speeds
Execute the tool’s default test; it immediately bypasses the storage’s cache by employing incompressible data patterns. This methodology prevents the drive from using data compression to artificially inflate its performance metrics, revealing the true, sustained transfer rates for both sequential and random operations.
The 4K random read/write results are particularly revealing. Marketing materials often highlight peak sequential figures, but real-world application performance hinges on small, random file access. A drive with a high sequential score but a low 4K random write value, for instance, will feel sluggish during everyday tasks like booting an OS or loading applications.
Scrutinize the access time measurements. This metric, reported in milliseconds, quantifies the physical latency of the flash memory. An exceptionally high access time, especially for write commands, is a definitive indicator of inferior controller quality or NAND flash, regardless of advertised peak throughput.
Finally, examine the score breakdown. The utility generates separate numerical values for read, write, and access time. A significant imbalance, such as a disproportionately low write score compared to the read score, exposes a fundamental weakness in the device’s architecture that peak speed claims deliberately obscure.
Analyzing Sequential Read and Write Performance Consistency
Execute a sustained file transfer exceeding 30GB to bypass the volatile cache. A genuine drive maintains stable throughput, while a subpar unit exhibits a sharp performance drop, often falling to one-third of its peak rate once its temporary buffer exhausts.
Scrutinize the results from a tool like AS SSD, focusing on the performance graph after a full-capacity write cycle. Consistent lines indicate a quality controller and robust NAND flash. Erratic spikes and troughs reveal a storage device struggling with thermal throttling or poor garbage collection, incapable of sustaining its marketed transfer rates.
Compare the initial burst speed against the final average. A difference greater than 40% signals an aggressive, misleading marketing strategy reliant on a small, fast-acting SLC cache. For reliable performance in tasks like video editing, prioritize models where this variance is minimal, even under heavy, prolonged loads.
Examine the 4K write speeds at a full drive capacity. This metric is a direct indicator of the controller’s efficiency under pressure. A significant degradation here, such as a drop below 30 MB/s, points to fundamental flaws in the flash management firmware, making the product unsuitable for professional workloads.
Measuring 4K Random Access and Queue Depth Behavior
Focus directly on the 4K Random Read/Write results in your performance report. These figures, measured in IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second) and megabytes per second, reflect the storage device’s handling of small, scattered files typical of an operating system and applications. High sequential transfer rates become irrelevant if this metric is poor.
The AS SSD Benchmark for disk performance tool applies a sustained load to measure these 4K operations at different queue depths. A low queue depth (QD1) simulates a typical desktop user’s activity, where commands are processed one after another. A drive struggling here will feel sluggish during everyday tasks. Higher queue depths (e.g., QD32, QD64) represent multi-threaded workloads, showing how the controller manages numerous simultaneous requests.
Analyze the relationship between queue depth and performance. A genuine high-performance drive will show a significant increase in IOPS as the queue depth rises, indicating a robust controller and sufficient internal parallelism. A mediocre unit may exhibit minimal gains, plateauing quickly and revealing its actual capabilities under stress, which often contradicts optimistic marketing claims based on ideal, cached scenarios.
FAQ:
What is the main trick AS SSD Benchmark uses to catch fake SSDs?
The primary method involves writing data to the drive in a highly compressible pattern and then immediately testing read speeds. Many cheaper SSDs, especially those without a DRAM cache, use a portion of your system’s RAM (a technique called HMB or Host Memory Buffer) and rely on data compression to boost their performance numbers. When the benchmark writes easily compressible data, these drives can store it very quickly, making their write speeds appear excellent. However, when the benchmark immediately reads that same data back, it exposes the drive’s true, often much slower, native speed for reading non-compressible information. This discrepancy between the high write speed and the low read speed is a major red flag.
My SSD gets great speeds in CrystalDiskMark but fails in AS SSD. Why does this happen?
This is a classic sign of an SSD that performs well only under specific, ideal conditions. CrystalDiskMark often uses random, incompressible data for its tests by default, but it can be configured to use compressible data. Many manufacturers, however, optimize their drives and marketing around benchmarks that use compressible data. AS SSD Benchmark is hardcoded to use incompressible data, which cannot be squeezed down by the drive’s compression algorithms. Therefore, if a drive’s controller relies heavily on data compression to achieve its speed, it will post significantly lower numbers in AS SSD. The benchmark essentially bypasses the “trick” that makes the drive look good in other tests, revealing its performance with the kind of mixed, real-world files you actually use.
What does the “mb/s” versus “iops” result tell me about my SSD’s performance?
These two metrics measure different but related aspects of speed. “MB/s” (megabytes per second) measures sequential throughput—how fast the drive can read or write one large, continuous file, like a movie. “IOPS” (Input/Output Operations Per Second) measures random access performance—how quickly the drive can find and process many small files scattered across its memory chips, which is critical for your operating system, loading games, and running applications. A drive might have high sequential speeds (good MB/s) but poor random performance (low IOPS), which would result in a sluggish feeling system despite what the advertised “up to” speed might suggest. AS SSD tests both, giving you a fuller picture of drive responsiveness.
Is a low score on the 4K read/write test in AS SSD a bad sign?
Yes, a low 4K score is often a strong indicator of a lower-quality or poorly configured drive. The 4K test measures how fast the drive can read and write very small, 4-kilobyte blocks of data. This type of activity is the foundation of most everyday tasks, from booting your computer to opening programs and loading levels in a game. A high 4K read speed, in particular, is what makes an SSD “feel” fast and responsive. If this score is low, you will likely experience system stutters and longer load times, even if the drive’s sequential speeds look good on paper. This test is excellent for identifying drives that sacrifice critical responsiveness for high, but often less relevant, sequential transfer rates.
Can a drive’s firmware affect its AS SSD Benchmark results?
Absolutely. Firmware is the low-level software that controls the SSD’s internal operations, including how it handles data compression, garbage collection, and wear leveling. A firmware update can sometimes improve performance by optimizing these processes, leading to better and more consistent benchmark scores. Conversely, some manufacturers have been known to release firmware that artificially inflates performance in specific, popular benchmarks—a practice known as “benchmark detection.” While AS SSD is less susceptible to this than some others, firmware plays a central role in how the drive manages its cache and sustains performance over time, which directly impacts the results you see.
My SSD gets a high score in AS SSD, but in real-life use, it feels much slower, especially when copying large files. Why is that?
The discrepancy you’re noticing is often due to the benchmark exposing the drive’s cache behavior. Many SSDs use a portion of their faster TLC or QLC memory as a high-speed SLC buffer. AS SSD’s sequential write test is long enough to fill this buffer. Initially, writes are very fast, but once this cache is full, the speed drops to the drive’s “native” write speed, which can be significantly lower. A manufacturer might advertise the high cache speed, but AS SSD shows both the initial burst and the sustained write performance after the cache is exhausted, giving you a more realistic picture of performance under heavy, continuous workloads like your file copy operation.
Reviews
IronForge
Another synthetic benchmark promising to expose marketing lies. How quaint. It fills a SLC cache, runs a few compressible data patterns, and spits out a number that’s just as synthetic as the claims it’s debunking. The real deception isn’t the advertised speed; it’s our belief that any of these numbers translate to the chaotic, unpredictable hell of actual use. You get a pretty graph, a moment of vindication, and then you go back to waiting on file transfers the same as always. It just confirms the performance cliff is there before you drive off it. A tool for proving you bought a lie, not for preventing it.
LunaBloom
Your explanation of the technical methodology is clear, but I’m left wondering about the human element behind these marketing tactics. What psychological or market research informs the decision to advertise these specific, often unattainable, sequential read speeds to the average consumer? Is the intent to exploit a general lack of benchmarking knowledge, or is there a deeper disconnect between engineering capabilities and marketing departments that this tool so clearly exposes?
Charlotte
So I just bought a “high-speed” SSD based on the advertised sequential read/write numbers, but now you’re saying those are almost meaningless for how I actually use my computer? That feels incredibly misleading. If these benchmarks can so easily reveal the slower, real-world speeds under normal use, why are companies even allowed to advertise this way? Shouldn’t there be a standard for reporting the performance a typical user can expect, not just the best-case scenario that lasts for two seconds?
Amelia Chen
My drive claimed to be a sports car, but it moved like a grocery cart on a rocky path. This little tool is the polite traffic officer who pulls it over, runs a few simple tests, and presents the real speed limit without any shouting. It’s quietly satisfying to see the numbers settle into their honest truth, like watching a cat finally find the one sunbeam on the floor. No drama, just data.
Sophia Rodriguez
My old SSD lied more than my teenage diary.
Benjamin
My logical side admires how this tool exposes marketing fluff. My romantic side? It just fell for honest performance.
