Did I get fucked?

Sandisk SSD Plus 240GB btw

>>51599999
checked

File: woman-surprise-face-asian-white-background-52304502.jpg (109KB, 1300x1270px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1300x1270px

>>51599999

File: Crucial MX100 Test.jpg (80KB, 425x384px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 425x384px

>>51599999

Try the test again at these settings so I can compare. This screenshot is over a year old though.

>>51600091
Results are indistinguishable from the first test.

>>51600178
>>51600012
You got what you paid for.

>>51599999
they are fine providing you are on a sata2 controller

ps nice quints nigga!

>>51599999
Nice quints.

Your bottleneck is probably your mobo now.

>>51600304
This makes sense, using a P5Q-E from years ago. Thank you friend.

>>51600342
yeah that is a sata 2 (3gbps) controller so you are getting as fast as you can get. sata 3 (6gbps) would get you ~double those speeds but you aint really gonna notice the difference in the real world

>>51600012
Should have gotte a 840 evo

>>51599999
If you are using SATA2 no, its bottlenecked.
If you are using SATA3 you did got fucked.

>>51600091
This is what I get on my sandisk 240gb. OP got fucked over

Bought the same thing for my craptop.
Laptop is using SATA2.
Similar results.

File: HDD benchmark.jpg (44KB, 396x319px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 396x319px

>>51599999
>>51600012
I got a Sandisk Ultra II 480 GB SSD and it performs a bit better than that on the 4k read and write but similarly on the sequential read/write. It's currently plugged into a SATA II port. Pic related is how my old hard drive performed. Also, checked.

File: snapshot_17.47_[2015.07.28_02.05.04].png (1MB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1152x648px

>>51600091
>Crucial MX100

File: shmnda.png (105KB, 804x740px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 804x740px

>>51599999
1tb ssd lyfe

File: optima.png (18KB, 406x364px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 406x364px

You're kinda low.
My Optima on SATA2.

File: evo.png (31KB, 385x318px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 385x318px

>>51600091
Man, I thought the 850 evo was supposed to be faster. At least it's faster than my old Agility 3 though.

File: CDM.png (51KB, 410x382px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 410x382px

>>51604779
>>51605364
Why post these if you do not report the SSD name? Boasting?

>>51605498
Not them but.
Now i see what was that text space for now.

>>51605498

Its probably the 950 PRO.

Literally the MEME ssd

>>51600012
Fuck I just bought the 120GB version

Am I fucked?

File: 1tb.png (847KB, 2272x820px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2272x820px

>>51605498

File: 840.png (37KB, 416x379px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 416x379px

>>51599999
r8 me f.am

>>51599999
The "SSD Plus" is their barebones "it's better than a HDD" version. That's what their specs say online, you should have read before buying.

The "ultra II" is the more performant one.

>>51604779
That's faster than SATA3 speeds. I suspect you're using one of those terrible cache accelerators.

File: CrystalDiskMark_4.0.3_x64_2015-11-30_13-36-01.png (37KB, 402x367px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 402x367px

Intel SSDSC2CT240A4 240GB

>>51599999
the only number that really matters is the 4k read really, everything else you won't even notice for anything except benchmarking

>>51607669
You work FAST, nigga!

That's nearly as quick as one stick of DDR2 800.

File: diskmark.png (38KB, 422x378px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 422x378px

I have no idea whether this is good or bad.

>>51605498
EVO>PRO Confirmed

Also, nice digits OP