Performance benchmark

Hi,
I would like to do some performance benchmarking using Xmath and SystemBuild. Matlab has a tic/toc function, and for Simulink there's model callback.
Is there a similar function in both Xmath and SystemBuild?
Thanks

pkad,
Another thing you might want to take a look at is the Hyperbuild manual. As part of its tutorial it describes a way to time the run-time of a simulation.
Have a great weekend,
NathanT

Similar Messages

Feb 2009 T500, SSD performance problems

I just bought an Intel X25-M 80GB drive (with the updated 8820 firmware) for read only database data files. I installed an eSata ExpressCard 34 and put the drive in a Rosewill enclosure. All of these items are rated at 3.0 Gb/s SATA speeds. But, when I benchmarked the drive it flatlines at around 130 MB/s. Oddly close to the SATA 1 or UDMA 6, so I looked into the device manager under "SCSI/Raid controllers" and found my SATALink controller. It reads that the "Host Link Speed" is 3.0 Gb/s, but the current transfer mode is "Ultra DMA 6". Is there a reason my new T500 laptop isn't able to run at the full speed of the ExpressCard? I was looking forward to those 250 MB/s reads I've been reading about.

anti00Zero, thank you for your replies. I have figured out what is going on with my situation. It turns out that the SI processor chip on the eSata expressCard has a maximum throughput of 130 MB/s. There is one other option that would provides a throughput of 200MB/s, but it costs $299. It's not likely they will sell many of those cards, when one that provides 130 MB/s costs only $45. In any event, I'll probably end up using the Intel X25 on my desktop because I dont want to have a $400 SSD go to waste at 130 MB/s. Lenovo T500 is working great.

Poor reflective memory read performance

I'm having some trouble with the GE 5565 PIORC reflective memory set of VIs for use with our reflective memory setup. I need to copy a pretty sizable chunk of memory out of reflective memory and into a DLL I've written, but the performance on the "GE 5565 PIORC:GE5565 Read (Cluster).vi" is not where I need it. I need to copy somewhere in the realm of 12k out of reflective memory at a high frequency, but the call to read those 12k takes longer than the period I need to gather the data at. I apologize in advance for the image-heavy post, but I think it's worth it to show what I've got.
Here's a picture of my setup to benchmark the Read call runtime:
Here's a graph of runtimes of that Read call, in microseconds:
I need it to run in way less than 16 ms, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me for only 12k. I did fool around with the DMA version of the Read (which I don't really understand, and the documentation is nonexistent as far as I can tell). Here's my test setup:
And here's a chart similar to the one above:
Way better, though I have no idea if it even does what I think it should So, I have a few questions. First, is there any way to get better performance out of that Read VI? Some other library I should be using, some setting I should be setting, some other way I should be benchmarking its performance, maybe even some way of doing this with another DLL? Second, if the Read can't achieve the performance I need, what's up with the DMA version, and how would I use it properly? Is the performance advantage that it appears to be giving real, or just an artifact of some mistaken way in which I'm using it? Thanks!

Hi dgoes
Windows is not a deterministic operating system so the loop cycle time that you are getting might be the best time that the windows system can achieve. In order to benchmark your code you can also use the input node and the output node of the timed loop. Check the following link.
Timed Loop
But it will be nice to know if you are working on a real time operating system or windows? Because unfortunately the windows operating system is not a deterministic system so the time loop might not work as expected. Here are a couple of links with information about this.
windows 1KHz time loop limitation reason
What is a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS)?
Which driver are you using for the GE 5565 PIORC? Is it this one?
GE 5565 PIORC
If it is, please notice that this driver is neither supported nor certified by National Instruments. This card is supported with NI VeriStand. Please check the information on the following links.
Getting Started With the GE cPCI-5565PIORC Reflective Memory Module
GE cPCI-5565PIORC
I hope that this information answer your questions.
Regards
Esteban R.

Silver graph performance (apparent serious 2011 flaw)

I noticed that cpu usage was quite high for some VIs and ended up finding out with simple comparison benchmarks (using performance and memory test) that a VI with the new silver graph runs about 25 times slower than a vi with the old, uh, modern graph at default graph size. For a graph widened to cover a wide screen, it decreased to about 190 times slower, a horrible crawl. For the test I just generated random numbers put into a 2000 element 1D array to be graphed (couldn't attach the test VIs for some reason).
The silver graph looks nice, but what in the world is going on here?
Jesse

Nice to know
Regards,
Even
Certified LabVIEW Associate Developer
Automated Test Developer
Topro AS
Norway

Best Practice of DMS in Auto-Industry & benchmarks

Hi Experts,
what is the best practice in DMS for auto-induastry?
Also we need centralized server and cache servers at plant level. what will be the best practice? and archiving solutions?
what is benchmark for defining content and cache server size?
Regards,
Ravindra

answered outside sdn

Problem with my MSI 290x gaming 4g performance in unigine valley benchmark.

First im dutch(netherlands) so sorry for my maybe bad english.
My system is:
Asus p8z77 v deluxe mb
intel 3770k cpu
16gb ram 1866 Corsair
2x ssd 256 gb OCZ
MSI 290x gaming
win7 64bit ultimate.
When i came home with my card i removed my old 7970 and replaced it with my new card.
Put some programs up like gpu-z cpu-z realtemp ext.
Then run Unigine-valley Benchmark with OC tool MSI at 1040 option.
My cpu at 4.2ghz OC
Score Unigine valley v1.0: 61.1 fps-score2558-min fps 30.3/max fps 112.8
Custom settings at 1920-1080 and ultra 8x aa windowed.
Seems ok result.
Now to problem i have.
So next i did (dumb me hehe) i try OC my CPU with All-suit II from ASUS to OC cpu extreme mode which stress test untill stable clock is found.
Got a crash bluescreen and then after few attemps stable 4.3.
Then did new benchmark and my score was alot lower and nomatter what i try my 290x did not pass 60fps any more and score dropped to 2100?
3dmark firestrike gave first time score of 9655 and after my disaster with cpu failed attemp 9200.
My card is stuck at 60fps max it won't get any higher?
The GPU-Z also show PCI-E 3.0 X16@ X1 1.1and when i activate render i see it only change to x16 1.1 i never see gen 3.0.
CPU-Z info motherboard also only pci-express link with x1 and x16
My questions is how can o solve this problem it seems my motherbaord don't reconize my videocard anymore?
Also posible that something with the OC attemp CPU broke something?
I also try change from AUTO to GEN3 in bios but then i get a blackscreen when i boot up it stays backscreen, have to change it switch videocards so i can see my boot again and go into BIOS.
Im at a lost here, hope one of you know a solution or whats my problem?
Hope ive supply enough info im bit of a newbie at this sorry for that.
Thanks in advance.

>>Clear CMOS<< of your board and retry.

GT70 2PC: 870M does not activate, benchmarks and performance ingame confirm this

I bought myself a GT70 2PC Dominator (the SSD version) with an 870M inside, and after starting several games, checking benchmarks and comparing framerates to my current desktop machine (which has an i5 2500K and a GTX 770), I find that, even after configuring the machine to prefer the "powerful Nvidia processor", and setting all games to use the Nvidia processor, it still uses the 4600 processor. I'm getting rather low framerates, I'm not hearing any fan speed increase, Benchmarks ingame like the one from Sleeping Dogs still report the 4600 GPU and some games won't even boot up properly (like Just Cause 2). I did configure all the games to use the Nvidia GPU in my Nvidia Control panel, I updated my drivers, Device manager is finding both cards.
Is there a way to tell my laptop "Look, I don't care about saving my battery, I don't care about noise, I don't care about heat (as long as it does not damage anything), just ALWAYS use the Nvidia GPU, even when it's not needed, so I can actually have some enjoyment out of the 1600 EUR I spent on this machine"?

Check your power button light and see if it lights red(red=dgpu, white=igpu) and make sure you've attached battery with AC plugged while playing games.
Fan speed is changing by different cpu/gpu temperature, so check the temperature and the fan speed in Dragon Gaming Center and compare the temperature and the fan speed under different situation.
Can you tell the graphics driver version you're using? (both Intel and NVIDIA one)
Sadly for the Optimus structure, you can't disable the single graphics but you should be able to use the dGPU to run the game. Except the settings in NVIDIA Control Panel, you can also try to right click on the shortcut of the game and choose "run with graphics processor"> "High-performance NVIDIA processor"

Poor performance by Matlab and Windows benchmark tests

Hello
I have a Lenovo Thinkpad W520 with Windows 7 64bit installed. Compared to other Notebooks with comparable hardware, my Lenovo is very slow. To prove my thought, I carried through a Matlab (64bit) benchmark test and the Windows 7 benchmark test. In both tests, my Lenovo was worse than the other notebooks. During the tests I set the Power Manager to performance and activated the Lenovo turbo boost.
Now I want to ask, if there are any settings, perhaps in the bios, to speed the laptop up? Or why result such a bad performance although the hardware is very good?
Thanks for your help
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Thank you very much for your reply!
I dated up the BIOS from version 1.27 to 1.32. Now the benchmark tests all look great!!
Thanks

VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop Benchmark Comparison

This is a quickie benchmark of VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop using Super PI, PC Mark 05, and Passmark.
VMWare Fusion 36932
Parallels Desktop 3094 Beta 2
Notes:
Both virtual machines were allocated with large 10+ GB virtual disks and 640MB of RAM. The VMWare CPU was configured with two processors. The Parallels CPU was configured with 1 (two is not available). VMWare reported the CPU as 1 physical, 2 logical processors running at 2.66 GHz while Parallels reported 1 physical, 1 logical processor running at 9.6 GHz (the combined speed of all four cores on the Mac Pro). The max observed CPU utilization in activity monitor when running under VMWare was 200% and max under Parallels was 173%.
I chose not to compare 1 VMWare CPU vs. 1 Parallels CPU. While Parallels does not support SMP or multithreaded processes on multiple processors the CPU utilization on the Mac went well above 1 core (173%). For this comparison, I wanted to see results of max processing based on what the two vendors have delivered, as opposed to benchmarking the underlying "virtual or hypervisor cpu" on a 1:1 basis. This explains why VMWare was 2x faster than Parallels on some CPU tests.
Both of these products are beta. VMWare is running in debug mode (can not be turned off in this beta).
Caveat emptor on these stats. This was an unscientific exercise to satisfy my curiosity. Some of the extraordinary differences are highlighted with <--.
Platform:
Mac Pro 2.66 GHz, 2GB RAM, Nvidia 7300GT
Disk 1 - OS X, 73GB Raptor
Disk 2 - dedicated disk where each virtual machine image was created separate from the OS or any OS-related virtual memory files.
VMWare and Parallels guest OS: Windows XP Professional, SP 2
Comparison Benchmrk
VMWare Fusion 36932 and Parallels Desktop 3094 Beta 2
Super PI Parallels VMWare
512K 8s 9s
1M 20s 21s
4M 1m 57s 2m 03s
PC Mark 05 Parallels VMWare
CPU Test Suite N/A N/A
Memory Test Suite N/A N/A
Graphics Test Suite N/A N/A
HDD Test Suite N/A N/A
HDD - XP Startup 5.0 MB/s 19.54 MB/s <--
Physics and 3D Test failed Test failed
Transparent Windows Test failed 69.99 Windows/s
3D - Pixel Shader Test failed Test failed
Web Page Rendering 3.58 Pages/s 2.34 Pages/s
File Decrypt 71.73 MB/s 67.05 MB/s
Graphics Memory - 64 Lines 179.92 FPS 111.73 FPS
HDD - General Usage 4.82 MB/s 42.01 MB/s <--
Multithread Test 1 / Audio Comp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 1 / Video Encoding Test failed Test failed
Multithread Test 2 / Text Edit 152.85 Pages/s 138.48 Pages/s
Multithread Test 2 / Image DeComp 5.91 MPixels/s 35.4 MPixels/s <--
Multithread Test 3 / File Comp 3.22 MB/s 6.03 MB/s
Multithread Test 3 / File Encrypt 19.0 MB/s 33.26 MB/s <--
Multithread Test 3 / HDD - Virus Scan 27.91 MB/s 25.49 MB/s
Multithread Test 3 / Mem Lat - Rnd 16MB 5.34 MAcc/s 6.63 MAcc/s
File Comp N/A N/A
File DeComp N/A N/A
File Encrypt N/A N/A
File Decrypt N/A N/A
Image DeComp N/A N/A
Audio Comp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 1 / File Comp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 1 / File Encrypt N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / File DeComp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / File Decrypt N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / Audio DeComp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / Image DeComp N/A N/A
Memory Read - 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Read - 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Read - 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Read - 4 kB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 4 kB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 4 kB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 4 kB N/A N/A
Transparent Windows N/A N/A
Graphics Memory - 64 Lines N/A N/A
Graphics Memory - 128 Lines N/A N/A
WMV Video Playback N/A N/A
3D - Fill Rate Multi Texturing N/A N/A
3D - Polygon Throughput Multiple Lights N/A N/A
3D - Pixel Shader N/A N/A
3D - Vertex Shader N/A N/A
HDD - XP Startup N/A N/A
HDD - Application Loading N/A N/A
HDD - General Usage N/A N/A
HDD - Virus Scan N/A N/A
HDD - File Write N/A N/A
Processor Intel Core 2 9653 MHz Processor Unknown 2661 MHz
Physical / Logical CPUs "1 Physical, 1 Logical" "1 Physical, 2 Logical"
MultiCore 1 Processor Core Multicore 2 Processor Cores
HyperThreading N/A N/A
Graphics Card Generic VGA Generic VGA
Graphics Driver Parallels Video Driver VMWare SVGA II
Co-operative adapters No No
DirectX Version 9.0c 9.0c
System Memory 640 MB 640MB
Motherboard Manufacturer N/A Intel Corporation
Motherboard Model N/A 440BX Desktop Reference Platform
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Microsoft Windows XP
Passmark Parallels VMWare
CPU - Integer Math (MOPS) 112.35 230.31 <--
CPU - Floating Point Math (MOPS) 280.46 588.33 <--
CPU - Find Prime Numbers (OPS) 446.37 676.99 <--
CPU - SSE/3DNow! (MMPS) 2118.56 4737.13 <--
CPU - Comp (KB/s) 2994.16 5952.34 <--
CPU - Encrypt (MB/s) 18.09 36.27 <--
CPU - Image Rotation (IRPS) 598.21 1184.41 <--
CPU - String Sorting (TPS) 2118.81 3672.59 <--
Graphics 2D - Lines (TPS) 220.71 25.15 <--
Graphics 2D - Rectangles (TPS) 189.74 61.8 <--
Graphics 2D - Shapes (TPS) 39.54 13.71 <--
Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text (OPS) 190.39 75.88 <--
Graphics 2D - GUI (OPS) 439.77 63.72 <--
Memory - Allocate Small Block (MB/s) 2533.83 2526.21
Memory - Read Cached (MB/s) 1960.5 1906.27
Memory - Read Uncached (MB/s) 1871.79 1826.08
Memory - Write (MB/s) 1687.81 1545.43
Memory - Large RAM (OPS) 60.99 46.37
Disk - Sequential Read (MB/s) 102.11 76.45 <--
Disk - Sequential Write (MB/s) 58.33 50.9
Disk - Rnd Seek + RW (MB/s) 51.4 40.4
CPU Mark 711.08 1432.72 <--
2D Graphics Mark 743.31 176.5 <--
Memory Mark 599.94 580.38
Disk Mark 766.11 606.7
PassMark Rating 557.27 637.35<br>

Thanks for posting these numbers - it's an interesting comparison.
I would expect the final VMWare fusion performance numbers to be quite a bit better than that of Parallels - they have almost a decade's worth of experience more than the Parallels folks in this arena, and a much larger development team to boot.
Once VMWare Fusion is released to the public, I think that you'll see a clearer distinction between the two products. VMWare will continue to appeal to the professional customer, with a more robust feature set and corporate-friendly features (and a correspondingly higher price tag); Parallels will fall more into the consumer/VirtualPC-replacement market. It will be interesting to see how Parallels will be affected when (and if) VMWare player is ported to OS X.
Interesting about the Parallels performance stats on a native partition - looks like almost enough reason to avoid the bootcamp partition approach altogether. Sharing a native windows installation with a VM in parallels is a pretty scary situation in any case, as the two environments have entirely different hardware configurations. Do-able, but there is some black magic involved (if you want to see an example of what I mean, try to move a windows installation from one machine to another w/different hardware sometime - it ain't pretty); I wouldn't try this in a production scheme unless I had REALLY good backups.

Modbus and shared variable performance in large application

Hi all,
I am preparing to work on an application which is going to reading from up to 500 Modbus input registers on a CompactRIO over Modbus Ethernet using the LVRT Modbus IO Server implementation. I've put together some minor test VIs on the local network to test the Modbus connectivity and understand in the shared variable minding mechanism.
To save potential headaches in the future, do you all have any best programming/proejct management practices for using high channel count Modbus applications? Has anyone done high channel count testing (similar to the link below) but for shared variables bound to a Modbus I/O Server? Any caveats I should keep in mind?
Performance Benchmarks for Network Published Shared Variables
http://www.ni.com/tutorial/14675/en/
Thanks,
Chris
d2itechnologies.com

If your application can deal with it I would recommend staying clear of the 'Networked Published' option.
When I started my Modbus development on cRIO....I left it enabled, and with ~100 shared variables on a 9074, the CPU was railing, and I saw a buffering behavior on the shared variables (which was not desirable in my application).
In my application I am using the old modbus library (as apposed to the new API) for cRIO to slave comms, the cRIO being the master.
I am also using the IOserver making the cRIO a slave to an external SCADA - and it passes essentially the same data arrays as I use on the modbus library for my local HMI [Not an NI product].....Which is two full Modbus frame writes (@ 120 words each, and about 60 words more for ~300 words outbound from the cRIO).
The IOserver slave was a recent addition and did not add much to the CPU load - although only 16 bytes is high speed, the balance of the total word package is at either 1 second or 3 seconds.
So, in my experince, the 'Networked Published' option adds significant CPU loading (on entery level cRIOs) YMMV.
I am huge fan of the shared variable engine (some at NI were pusing the CVT, and TCE etc...). However most of my shared variables are not the Networked Published variety (excepting local module channels) those have remained networked published for DSM (Distributed System Manager) use.

VBAI Performance

Hi
we are using VBAI 2012 full version and we wrote an application on our computer using a Basler GigE cam. To see how fast our application is running we use from time to time the benchmark function. But the results are confusing. Sometimes we get only the performance to check 1 piece a second. After closing and restarting VBAI the same application gives us a speed of up to 4-5 pieces a second.
Is there an effect that the application gets slower by a longer use of VBAI? How can we avoid that our application gets to slow.
By comparing the results in details we see that some functions need 10 times the time when using VBAI for a long time in comparison to after a restart of VBAI.
How can this be?
greetings
Oliver

Hello Brad,
thanks for this idea we will try to uncheck the updating image box.
Meanwhile we changed the application that it will run on the VBAI Server and a CVI program controls the application. Today we made some measurements, the results are not so good as expected, we can only check three parts a second. It is enough for our application but there will be no more reserve. I attached the results to this message. You can see the different results of five measurement. The most different value is the time the inspect needs.
Is there any possibility to give the server a higher priority that it will run faster?
best regards
Oliver
Attachments:
Mappe1.zip ‏51 KB

Improving performance.

Before i wiped my computer, i was able to get 60 frames or higher all the time in a game called Guild Wars. Since then im lucky to get 30. Ive closed start up programs, and requested help by email and nothing seems to help it. I was told to do memory tests and such, but i have no idea whether it worked or not. Any other suggestions?
HP Pavilion dv6-2044ca Entertainment Notebook PC
Windows 7 Ultimate
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200

When you say "frames" do you mean frames per second as in video frames?
I'm assuming Guild Wars is an online game - you got the correct NIC & video drivers loaded?
Get a copy of PC Wizard from sysinternals.com and test/benchmark your fresh machine.

SSD performance sharing

Hi all, as ia have found out different performance on SSD's delivered in T400s laptops, could you please share your info about performance, using CrystalDiskMark tool. Model : SAMSUNG MMCRE28G8MXP-0VBL1 Firmware : VBM1EL1Q OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64) -------------------------------------------------- CrystalDiskMark 2.2 (C) 2007-2008 hiyohiyo Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/ -------------------------------------------------- Sequential Read : 146.358 MB/s Sequential Write : 144.299 MB/s Random Read 512KB : 123.382 MB/s Random Write 512KB : 114.466 MB/s Random Read 4KB : 13.315 MB/s andom Write 4KB : 7.404 MB/s Test Size : 100 MB Date : 2010/01/13 11:11:44
Lenovo T440s, 20AQ0067MC, Windows 8.1 Pro x64 UEFI, Samsung 840 EVO SSD 250 GB, 8 GB RAM
Lenovo T430s, 2356LQG, Windows 8.1 Pro x64 UEFI, Intel 520 SSD 180 GB, 8 GB RAM
Lenovo T420s, 4171-6SG, Windows 8 Pro x64 UEFI, Intel 320 SSD 120 GB, 8 GB RAM
Lenovo T400s, 2808-CYG, Windows 7 Ultimate x64

You may want to use a larger test size. Some controllers have up to 256MB onboard cache memory that may interfere with the results.
I got the Toshiba SSD in my T400 and numbers were just a bit higher - around 200 read and 190 write (sequential), but I do not have the benchmark anymore to give you the break down.
Also you may want to look at AS SSD benchmark tool (http://alex-is.de/PHP/fusion/downloads.php?cat_id=4) as most other benchmark tools out there are not specifically designed for SSD but rather for HDDs.

Low performance USB port on X61

Hi,
Recently I found my X61 has a low USB performance, when I copy files to my external USB HDD, the speed is about 13MB/s. Then I tested X61's writing speed on external USB HDD with HDtune and ATTO Disk benchmark, it is around 12-14MB/s. But The USB HDD have a writing speed over 25MB/s on other computers.
I have three USB HDDs of different model, and the USB writing speed on X61 is all the same, so it must be the problem of X61.
Anyone has the same problem? Any solution to this problem?

joecct77 wrote:
There is a USB Port on my MI424 router. Does it work and if so, what can I hook it up to and how do I do it (besides plugging the cable in)??
THANKS!!
Last I heard, the usb port on the Verizon supplied routers are not active and may or may not be active in later verisions.
"If your problem has been solved, please mark it as such. Don't forget to hand out your Kudos!"

[W510] - USB 3.0 SSD, poor performance.

Help please?
I'm getting some rather poor performance on both of the USB 3.0 ports on the laptop.
I have an SSD that's been tested via internal SATA II connection, capable of (sequential) read 275MB/s, and write 250MB/s. Also have a 3.5 inch WD Caviar Black 2TB SATAIII (WD2002FAEX), tested via eSATA, capable of (sequential) read 150MB/s, and write 150MB/s (think it saturated the eSATA on the W510).
However, when either of these two drives was connected via USB 3.0 (tested with three different brands of USB 3.0 enclosure), the sequential read performance was only at 85MB/s, and write was (REALLY bad) at 60MB/s (even with the SSD). This leads me to think there's a bottleneck somewhere on the W510 (because I know for certain, the USB 3.0 enclosures are capable to at least give 130MB/s read and write. The drives are also capable of performing faster than 100MB/s as well).
All drivers, BIOS, firmware are the latest. Platform is Windows 7 Ultimate - 64bit.
The NEC USB 3.0 chipset seems to be connected to PCI Express 2.0 x1 bus. Reading on the Intel QM57 chipset spec, the PCI Express 2.0 implementation is only capable of serving 2.5GT/s (http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/chipsets/qm57/qm57-overview.htm), using 8b/10b encoding (http://www.tmworld.com/article/318759-What_does_GT_s_mean_anyway_.php), that gives 2Gbps. So I was expecting the USB 3.0 connection is capable of giving me around (not exact, as I accept there's overhead) 200MB/s.
At this point in time, a single mechanical drive (consumer level) can't quite go up to 200MB/s yet, but SSD can. And therefore, I expected my SSD benchmark via USB 3.0 could at least give me that....sadly it wasn't the case with the W510.
This brings two questions I have for the forum:
1. Why is my W510 USB 3.0, in combination with high performance disks and rather capable USB 3.0 enclosures, perform so poorly.
2. If my understanding from above is correct, then isn't this "USB 3.0" feature (regardless of my benchmark result) sounds misleading? Because the product, W510, is simply incapable of delivering a USB 3.0 experience even in "ideal" situation (limited by the 2.5GT/s).

I did try eSATA as well, the WD drive was able to do 150MB/s and 149MB/s, read and write respectively. (as the QM57 chipset natively supports SATA at 3Gb/s)
The issue here is as part of the decision process to get the W510, USB 3 capability came into consideration (for having more than 1 fast external storage device).
EDIT:
Ultimately, what I'm really after is:
1. Have I configured something incorrectly, or misconfigured something. Or is there's some ideal component linkage I'm missing.
2. Is the W510's USB 3.0, at the very least, capable of delivering 2.5GT/s?
3. I may, or may not have to file a complaint to Lenovo or BBB for misleading marketing / sales info.
2nd EDIT:
I do thank you for suggesting eSATA. However, if Lenovo is going to reply to this, I simply won't take "use the touchpad instead" if the trackpoint isn't working properly.

Performanc​e benchmark

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for

Performance benchmark