Extremely slow SSD in Surface Book

Am I the only one who saw 4ms access time in this benchmark?? Like old HDD's from fifteen years ago? Thats not a big problem?? I tried deleting my Windows.old catalog and didnt get it to end in 2,5 hours. I bought Surface pro i7 in europe for 1800$. I'm speechless about some ignorance here. Thats my benchmarks:

After reading this post and observing the same lame speeds, and especially knowing that the Apple MacBook pro gives 1400 mbps speeds both in read and write I am returning my surface book today. What's the point of paying more than an Apple computer if you don't even get their quality /specs.

BTW, Microsoft has censored my review on the website for the surface book. They don't seem to like it when folks uncover the truth about the failure of their new devices.

Beware people.

OK, maybe I'll just copy what I wrote in an earlier thread.

128GB PM951 ($1500 Surface Book)

Sequential read: 600MB/s

Sequential write: 150MB/s

Random read: 140K IOPS

Random write: 37K IOPS

256GB PM951 ($1700, $1900, and $2100 Surface Book)

Sequential read: 1000MB/s

Sequential write: 280MB/s

Random read: 250K IOPS

Random write: 74K IOPS

512GB PM951 ($2700 Surface Book)

Sequential read: 1050MB/s

Sequential write: 560MB/s

Random read: 250K IOPS

Random write: 144K IOPS

OP, just like ttsoldier mentioned, you're experiencing the normal performance of the 128GB PM951.

I don't understand why Microsoft would offer this drive in a $1500 notebook; this 128GB drive has the slowest sequential writes that I have seen of any SSD in the past four years. Literally, spinning hard disks write faster than this drive. That 6TB spinning disk writes @ 215MB/s.

You know what's most aggravating? There are much faster 128GB SSDs (all non-NVMe) that have been available for years. Sure, in any one line of SSDs, the 128GB model is the slowest (or whatever the lowest capacity is). But, in general--128GB SSDs can hold their own. Just not this one.

But, I suspect Microsoft didn't expect users of the lowest-end model to really be copying lots of files (even though they paid $1500 for their system). Honestly, though, this SSD is an embarrassment to 2015 SSDs and a bad mark on PCIe NVMe drives.

To make it even worse, this uses TLC NAND from Samsung. I still haven't forgiven Samsung for the issues they caused in the 840 EVO and the 840 (which, I think, is still unpatched). I don't know if it's the exactly the same NAND, but Anandtech wrote this earlier this year:

At the heart of the issue was the drive’s relatively uncommon 19nm TLC NAND, which given the combination of small feature size and tighter requirements of TLC, eventually resulted in the drive having to slow down and re-read cells to properly read the charge-decayed cells....

Ultimately Samsung’s second fix is a bit of a brute force solution to the problem, but at this point there doesn’t seem to be anything Samsung can do about 19nm TLC cell charge decay other than to refresh the data, as the problem is intrinsic to the NAND itself.

Dang, Microsoft: this is the NAND you chose to put in your $1500 laptop? I hope they got crazy strong assurances from Samsung that this won't be happening in their premier 2015 laptop.

And, to make matters worse, it's the sequential write speeds that are weak. You know, exactly the speeds to degrade over time when the drive gets more full.

But, as always, Microsoft is happy to charge you $2/GB (roughly) to upgrade your Samsung TLC SSD to another Samsung TLC SSD.

--

In the end, most users won't notice or care. But, Microsoft...in their reveal...literally edits Adobe Premier Pro on stage and raves about how fast movie files copy from the external hard drive.

I have exactly the same problem on i7/512GB SSD /NvidiaGPu Surface Book.

May i ask which SSD your Surface Book has? is it made by samsung like the one in the video and screenshot? Thanks!