Weird issue with WoW and SSD and I'm at a loss, could really use help from genius.

[Thunderball]

My recommendation for SSDs is either Intel with an actual Intel controller (or modified Marvel) or Crucial MX series or finally the Samsung 850 EVO/Pro series.
Personally my preference goes out to Crucial MX200 series even over the MX300 series due to MLC NAND vs. TLC NAND.

The Intel ones that are proper are often far too expensive and Samsung's drives ... well let's just say that my anecdotal experience with them hasn't been great in either consumer or business environments where all the crucial drives I've used so far are still functioning and kicking ass.

MX300 is slower than MX200, it's no surpise. They are cheaper, too.

[Evildeffy]

MX300 is slower than MX200, it's no surpise. They are cheaper, too.

Speed at that level is generally irrelevant for the consumer.
Also it's Crucial's first foray into 3D-NAND so they will have to work out all the kinks in their firmware, performance will improve over time.

Also the benchmarks generally MLC NAND has an advantage in most territories of speed you're referring to over TLC NAND due to how it works.
SLC NAND is stupendously fast in that regard but costs a metric crapton.

And unlike Samsung, which has firmware flaws in general, Crucial prefers to err on the side of caution and prioritizes reliability first and then focuses on speed.

Point however remains that even if he takes the Crucial MX300 he will not be displeased with it where-as the Intel SSD 530 is equipped with a SandForce controller which is known to have issues and have horrid QC from the parent company.

Also the Crucial MX200 has entered it's Legacy period as it will no longer be produced and the stores will only sell what's left if the MX300 maintains it's reliability after a 6-month period so it will not be available for long anyway.

[lockedout]

There is definitely something wrong with that benchmark. The bandwidth throughput of a SATA 3 port is only 600MB/s. 850 EVOs are usually around 500MB/s sequential reads.

I have run it multiple times and it always close to the same, is there another benchmarking tool you use, maybe this one isn't working as intended. For reference it's not an M.2 just a regular 850.

[Cilraaz]

I have run it multiple times and it always close to the same, is there another benchmarking tool you use, maybe this one isn't working as intended. For reference it's not an M.2 just a regular 850.

I use the same benchmark software. As another poster said, it could be Samsung's Rapid Mode causing it to test out of RAM instead of the SSD itself. Aside from that, I'm unsure why it would show you 6600MB/s when most EVO 850 benchmarks are in the 540MB/s range and a SATA 3 port's max throughput is 6Gb/s, or 750MB/s.

[lockedout]

I use the same benchmark software. As another poster said, it could be Samsung's Rapid Mode causing it to test out of RAM instead of the SSD itself. Aside from that, I'm unsure why it would show you 6600MB/s when most EVO 850 benchmarks are in the 540MB/s range and a SATA 3 port's max throughput is 6Gb/s, or 750MB/s.

Are there any options I am missing or have set to the wrong values possibly? It seemed pretty straight forward.

[Cilraaz]

Are there any options I am missing or have set to the wrong values possibly? It seemed pretty straight forward.

None that I know of. AS is pretty much just a "run and click start" type of benchmark.

[lockedout]

None that I know of. AS is pretty much just a "run and click start" type of benchmark.

The only setting I can change that I see is from 1gb to 2gb 5gb and 10gb. Even at 10 gb I get higher then normal numbers, lower then what I posted originally but still very high.

[Denpepe]

My recommendation for SSDs is either Intel with an actual Intel controller (or modified Marvel) or Crucial MX series or finally the Samsung 850 EVO/Pro series.
Personally my preference goes out to Crucial MX200 series even over the MX300 series due to MLC NAND vs. TLC NAND.

The Intel ones that are proper are often far too expensive and Samsung's drives ... well let's just say that my anecdotal experience with them hasn't been great in either consumer or business environments where all the crucial drives I've used so far are still functioning and kicking ass.

Not to start an argument or anything but my Crucial SSD kept disappearing from my system (one of the older mx100 ones) got a refund since they did not stock them anymore, bought a Samsung 850 evo in stead and haven't had any problems with that one, shit can always go wrong, even with reputable brands.

I atm would recommend Intel, Samsung and for more budget oriented builds OCZ trion 150.

[Evildeffy]

Not to start an argument or anything but my Crucial SSD kept disappearing from my system (one of the older mx100 ones) got a refund since they did not stock them anymore, bought a Samsung 850 evo in stead and haven't had any problems with that one, shit can always go wrong, even with reputable brands.

I atm would recommend Intel, Samsung and for more budget oriented builds OCZ trion 150.

Correct, any brand can and will fail at some point in time.
The statistics however from my experience, albeit anecdotal, and the shops/suppliers I still have contact with all confirm with me that Crucial has a far less failure rate than Samsung and even Intel (non-Marvel or Intel based controllers).

That said I am rocking an Intel SSD DC S3700 800GB and I have no issues with it ... but it's not in the range of affordability for 99,99% of all people.