[W510] - USB 3.0 SSD, poor performance. [ Editado ]

[Chatbox]

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).

[ColonelONeill]

Try eSATA. USB 3.0 is slower than it.

[Chatbox]

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.

[hazart]

My replacement OCZ SSD is on its way. Once I receive it, I'll benchmark it using my W701 via a USB 3.0/eSATA dock and report back.

[Chatbox]

Thanks man!  Appreciate your help.

[dimm0k]

---

ColonelONeill wrote:
Try eSATA. USB 3.0 is slower than it.

---

While I am confused about the whole GT/s translation, I've noticed that on my W510 I get roughly the same performance from the eSATA and the USB 3.0 connections.  While I do not have any way to thoroughly verify my readings, I do know that I get roughly 100MB/s from both with similar drives and external enclosures from Rosewill for both eSATA and USB 3.0.

[Chatbox]

I used Crystal Disk Mark for testing.

[ColonelONeill]

eSATA should be more efficient as it's pretty much a regular SATA connection. USB 2.0 and presumably USB 3.0 has more overhead, and is thus less efficient.

[Chatbox]

Inefficiency and overhead have been taken into consideration.  What doesn't quite make sense to me at this point is how is it that on other systems (desktops), with the same enclosures, slower drives (Seagate Barracuda 7200)...those people are able to get around 130MB/s. (both sequential read and write).  But, as of now, I'm unable to even get close to 100MB/s (not even when using an SSD or the Caviar Black).

[dimm0k]

@ColonelONeill: isn't USB 3.0 supposed to be less overhead that 2.0?  I thought USB 3.0 was supposed to be faster than eSATA even after the overhead?

---

Chatbox wrote

Inefficiency and overhead have been taken into consideration.  What doesn't quite make sense to me at this point is how is it that on other systems (desktops), with the same enclosures, slower drives (Seagate Barracuda 7200)...those people are able to get around 130MB/s. (both sequential read and write).  But, as of now, I'm unable to even get close to 100MB/s (not even when using an SSD or the Caviar Black).

---

Is 130MB/s the average from USB 3.0?