PC Peripherals Crucial SSD giving terrible speeds - kaizeninfoserve not replying to my emails - terrible warranty service

F

frozty97

Disciple
Hello guys.

Have any of you guys had Curical SSD RMAed?
How do I avail that? I emailed them already
This is what I sent them. Let me know if there is another way to get service done on my SSD.

"
Hello,

Hope you are doing well.

I bought "Crucial BX500 1TB 3D NAND SATA 6.35 cm (2.5-Inch) Internal SSD - CT1000BX500SSD1" in Feb23.

It seemed working fine, but since last 2-3 days I was trying to install some games (Horizon and Zelda)It was taking way way way too long. I thought it was the ISO issue, so I downloaded it from another place, where I had to extract it in WinRAR. And it also started taking a long time.
I noticed that my disk usage is at 100% with write speed of 17mb/s max.

I ran some tests, images are attached below.

So previous mentioned WinRAR file after 30 minutes of extraction it was at 10%. However, I downloaded the same file into another SSD I have, and then extracted it. It finished in less than 20 minutes.
The file was around 66gb.

Can you please help me with this? Is the SSD faulty. I can provide you the bill if needed.
tRXShWS.png

kHBKRCi.png

GeYdpog.png
"
 
If you haven't retrim the drive then in windows-
Goto settings -> System -> Storage -> Optimize drives -> Select drive -> click on optimize, then try running the benchmark again.

Also don't fill the drive completely and keep a portion (atleast 10% for these qlc dramless drives) empty in the long term.
 
Last edited:
frozty97 said:
Hello guys.

Have any of you guys had Curical SSD RMAed?
How do I avail that? I emailed them already
This is what I sent them. Let me know if there is another way to get service done on my SSD.

"
Hello,

Hope you are doing well.

I bought "Crucial BX500 1TB 3D NAND SATA 6.35 cm (2.5-Inch) Internal SSD - CT1000BX500SSD1" in Feb23.

It seemed working fine, but since last 2-3 days I was trying to install some games (Horizon and Zelda)It was taking way way way too long. I thought it was the ISO issue, so I downloaded it from another place, where I had to extract it in WinRAR. And it also started taking a long time.
I noticed that my disk usage is at 100% with write speed of 17mb/s max.

I ran some tests, images are attached below.

So previous mentioned WinRAR file after 30 minutes of extraction it was at 10%. However, I downloaded the same file into another SSD I have, and then extracted it. It finished in less than 20 minutes.
The file was around 66gb.

Can you please help me with this? Is the SSD faulty. I can provide you the bill if needed.
tRXShWS.png

kHBKRCi.png

GeYdpog.png
"
Click to expand...
I don't think your SSD is underperforming or malfunctioning. Being DRAM-less, it is performing as expected for larger file transfers (think greater than 50GB or so), which you indicate since your file is about 66GB in size. Refer to the review here for 50GB file transfer rates, where the 960GB BX500 only gives 49mbps - in line with your ~30mbps speed for a 66GB file transfer, since the larger the file the slower it will become. Your only option is to pause the extraction (if possible) to allow the SSD to clear its cache, and then resume again.
I have faced the same issue when trying to unpack ISOs with my SN550, were speed slows down to less than 200mbps on extended file transfers - however, once I pause for about a couple minutes and resume, it goes back to about 1.5gbps.
Here's the specific benchmark I'm talking about btw:
1697470183666.png

Long term write performance is the price one pays when buying a DRAM-less SSD
 
Stronk said:
Being DRAM-less, it is performing as expected for larger file transfers (think greater than 50GB or so), which you indicate since your file is about 66GB in size
...
Long term write performance is the price one pays when buying a DRAM-less SSD
Click to expand...
The speed drop off for large writes is due to SLC cache filling up on a QLC drive, so the file has to be written directly to QLC flash instead, which is MUCH slower. DRAM doesn't cause this
 
k_m_Arya said:
View attachment 180541
I have a MX500 and it has dram but I'm not sure the performance difference would be this big.
Click to expand...
Yes, the performance difference between a MX500 and BX500 is indeed big when doing large transfers - the MX500 is 3x faster than the BX500 in the 50GB transfer test graph I posted earlier.

Also, this benchmark seems incredible for an MX500 - not sure how a SATA SSD, whose speeds are limited to ~500mbps due to the 6gbps SATA standard itself, is getting over 5700mbps - that is Gen4 PCIe SSD territory. Even my Gen3 SN570 doesn't reach those speeds. Moreover, those random reads and writes cannot be true - Gen4 SSDs struggle to reach the numbers your SATA drive is posting. Try running a 4GiB test and then seeing the numbers, since a 1GiB test might be too short for the SSD to accurately show it's speed.

Here are my benchmarks for my Maxon 2TB enterprise SATA SSD:
1697472041098.png


And here for my Gen3 NVMe 1TB SN570 boot drive:
1697904683928.png


Also my nearly 3-year-old 90% full SN550 for good measure:
1697472948679.png

On a side note, the speed drop off is real once DRAM-less drives are filled to 90% or more. I remember I got about 2100MBps write when new. In any case, it is used as a game drive now so doesn't really matter much and glad to see the SN570 still performing well even at 83% full
Alucard1729 said:
That doesn't look like mx500 numbers....
Rather they look more like of an Optane p5800x or a RAM drive.
Those random 4k read speeds XD.......
Click to expand...
Yep exactly. Maybe it's some setting in the Crucial software but those benchmarks are definitely not representative of MX500 performance - neither long term nor short term
 

Attachments

  • 1697472387976.png
    1697472387976.png
    584.7 KB · Views: 120
Last edited:
My 5 yr old Intel sata ssd..

Since few months its getting slow all of a sudden even though its 35% free and no health issues.

1697473051743.png
 
ze_cook said:
Yeah, that's not mx500 numbers. You probably have some sort of system ram caching (Crucial storage executive momemtum cache for example) enabled (different from ssd on drive dram cache).
Click to expand...
That's right some of the SSD brand softwares have this option of using system RAM as a read/write cache to artificially boost speeds.
When you write or hit that save button, it appears normal, but the data is actually written to RAM at super fast speeds, and shows file saved, but it takes longer to actually flush that data to SSD. If power is lost before that happens, you can kiss that data good bye.
 
And here is my newer aka this yr purchased Samsung 980 M.2 SSD

1697476592315.png

Alucard1729 said:
The benchmark numbers are still good. Any particular scenario where you witnessed the slowdown?
Click to expand...
Desktop or browsing partition directories which aren't densely populated.
Alucard1729 said:
Also try optimizing drive option in windows (retrim), to cancel out issue with garbage collection.
Click to expand...
Haven't tried that but TRIM is enabled right from first usage.
 
Last edited:
Alucard1729 said:
If you haven't retrim the drive then in windows-
Goto settings -> System -> Storage -> Optimize drives -> Select drive -> click on optimize, then try running the benchmark again.

Also don't fill the drive completely and keep a portion (atleast 10% for these qlc dramless drives) empty in the long term.
Click to expand...
I did optimize.
1697476690865.png

Drive is fairly empty.
After running the test its now this
1697477126376.png


and my M2 looks like this (Just posting to ask if this drive is okay or not, currently my m2 is givijng me 0 issues very sexy)
1697477167211.png


Guys - the solution given by @Alucard1729 seem to have fixed my problem. I tried extracting same zip on my M2 and SATA (the crucial slow one).
m2 took like 12 minutes, sata 14-15 minutes. So yeah it seems to have fixed.

Many thanks!!
 
Stronk said:
Also my nearly 3-year-old 90% full SN550 for good measure:
View attachment 180544
On a side note, the speed drop off is real once DRAM-less drives are filled to 90% or more. I remember I got about 2100MBps write when new. In any case, it is used as a game drive now so doesn't really matter much and glad to see the SN570 still performing well even at 83% full
Click to expand...
Hey sorry to revive the thread but just wanted to post an update on my SN550 SSD - as soon as I deleted some of the data to bring it down to under 90% capacity, the performance became much better:
1697904260873.png

So if your DRAM-less SSD suddenly starts feeling slow, maybe ensure that you haven't used more than 90% capacity!
frozty97 said:
Drive is fairly empty.
After running the test its now this
Click to expand...
The speeds look good for a SATA drive. Maybe install CrystalDiskInfo to see if there any any warning signs?
 
Last edited:
Stronk said:
So if your DRAM-less SSD suddenly starts feeling slow, maybe ensure that you haven't used more than 90% capacity!
Click to expand...
  1. This issue is common to every SSD, DRAM or DRAM-less doesn't matter, as mentioned before
  2. What I do is create partition using only 90% of total space, so 10% remains unallocated. So I don't need to keep track of free space, and even if I fill up the partition, the disk itself is never full so speed never drops. Also the unallocated space can be used by the controller for wear levelling as required
screenshot_20231021214829.png
 
n1r0 said:
What I do is create partition using only 90% of total space, so 10% remains unallocated. So I don't need to keep track of free space, and even if I fill up the partition, the disk itself is never full so speed never drops. Also the unallocated space can be used by the controller for wear levelling as required
Click to expand...
Concept called overprovisioning.
 
Stronk said:
Hey sorry to revive the thread but just wanted to post an update on my SN550 SSD - as soon as I deleted some of the data to bring it down to under 90% capacity, the performance became much better:
View attachment 181002
So if your DRAM-less SSD suddenly starts feeling slow, maybe ensure that you haven't used more than 90% capacity!

The speeds look good for a SATA drive. Maybe install CrystalDiskInfo to see if there any any warning signs?
Click to expand...
Crystal disk showed no error signs
Also I have same m2 ssd - ur read speeds are slower than mine but write speeds are faster. Weird
 
Back
Top