SATAII150 TX2plus - don't bother

[songoku]

I purchased the promise SATAII tx2plus SATA controller card a few weeks ago. This controller card supports the SATAII functions of tagged command queuing and native command queuing. Those two options, the company’s tell us, will give a 30% boost in performance. Thus I was hopping the increase that they promised so many years ago (or when ever I bought my raptor), but it seems to be hidden. I have not ran all the tests yet, but here is a comparison of just some basic ones.

I tested this controller on 2 drives -
WD74 0GD-00FLA0 (74GB Raptor, tcq)
Maxtor B300S0 (300GB, ncq)

I tested them both separated.
Separate tcq/ncq is on–
Roadkill’s Disk Speed version 1.0 –
Wdc – 10253
Maxtor – 7059

HD_Speed 1.3.2.40
Wdc – 12.1 mb/s (read)
Maxtor 63.3 mb/s (read)
Wdc – 2.0 mb/s (burst rate read)
Maxtor – 1009 mb/s (burst rate read)

Windows boot time –
Wdc – 154 seconds
Maxtor – 20 seconds
---------------------------------------
Separate tcq/ncq is off–
Roadkill’s Disk Speed version 1.0 –
Wdc – 12568
Maxtor – 6935

HD_Speed 1.3.2.40
Wdc – 68.7 mb/s (read)
Maxtor 60.3 mb/s (read)
Wdc – 1002 mb/s (burst rate read)
Maxtor – 1009 mb/s (burst rate read)

Windows boot time –
Wdc – 15 seconds
Maxtor – 20 seconds

Depressing really.



Antec Neo Power 480, AMD Athlon 3000 (@2.2), A8v Deluxe (rev 2.0), Kingston Hyperx pc2700 (@350), ATI Radeon 9800XT, WD740GD, 6Y200M0, 6B300S0, 1633s, 832s, HD-166D, Samsung 172x, Logitech MX700.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

could this be anymore CPU related?

_______________________
<A HREF="http://www.moviewavs.com/MP3S/TV_Shows/Simpsons/flanderssong.mp3" target="_new">Audio Sig</A>

 

[Zoron]

You'll only notice a difference if you're running a server... which you probably aren't. Regular day-to-day Windows tasks won't benefit from the technology. If you do a lot of video encoding or server-related tasks, then you should notice a difference... if not, then it's a waste. (Much like RAID 0)

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[AMD101]

RAID 0 is not a waste @ all. Programs install insanely fast. Windows boots up in less than 15 seconds and your hdd's dont get bogged down when doing more than 1 thing @ a time.

 

[Zoron]

Programs only install as fast as your CD/DVD/Whatever drive can read the discs... and that's slower than the hard drive. I boot Windows usually once per day (only when updating drivers do I need to reboot more), so taking 30 - 45 seconds for Windows to boot doesn't bother me. The increased cost/risk of data loss doesn't equate the performace boost you get... at least not for me.

Load times for games (what I'm MOST concerned with) are virtually the same... single drive or RAID 0. The hard drive isn't as big a bottleneck for loading times as people like to think it is.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[songoku]

yes, its just drepressing. I mean i usually go out and buy the newest and coolest right way. And then once i get it back, it doesnt work as they claim. bs if you ask me.

Antec Neo Power 480, AMD Athlon 3000 (@2.2), A8v Deluxe (rev 2.0), Kingston Hyperx pc2700 (@350), ATI Radeon 9800XT, WD740GD, 6Y200M0, 6B300S0, 1633s, 832s, HD-166D, Samsung 172x, Logitech MX700.

 

[ChipDeath]

I have noticed a substantial improvement from RAID 0, although some of that could be due to the fact my 2 80Gb RAID drives are 8Mb cache and my previous single 80Gb is 2Mb.

Large file copies & game load times all seem to have improved noticeably.

---
"Sex without love is an empty experience...
But as empty experiences go, it's one of the best" - Woody Allen

 

[Zoron]

You probably would have noticed a difference using a single 8MB cache drive as well...

Yes, copying large files, video encoding, etc will benefit greatly with RAID 0. Level loading times in games though are a different beast altogether.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

That's it. I won't be happy until I have an 8 disk RAID5 array on 15K SCSI drives! :O

<pre><b><font color=red>"Build a man a fire and he's warm for the rest of the evening.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Steve Taylor</font color=red></b></pre><p>

 

[ytoledano]

I was thinking about buying a Maxline III 300 GB drive (16 MB cache, NCQ, 100 GB per platter) for $206 from Newegg, while a 200 GB 8MB SATA drive will cost $114 (so $171 for 300GB). I'm still not sure if the performance benefits are worth the extra 35, guess it doesn't matter that much, but I'd still like to know.

<b>Behold, Mine anger and My fury shall be poured out upon this place upon man and upon beast and upon the trees of the field and upon the fruit of the land and it shall burn and shall not be quenched

 

[sjonnie]

Command queing is only of any relevance when more than one command is sent to the hard disk at a time. Simple continuous read/write benchmarks won't be affected, neither will simple random read. You need to use Intel I/O meter which can generate specific queue lengths and measure the I/O response.

If you run Perfom with Queue length monitor on you'll be hard pressed to see a queue length of more than 3. I once launched as many hard disk accessing programs as I could simultaneously and the queue length still didn't get above 5.

RAID0 affects I/Os when the requests are of suitable size. RAID0 has an extra command overhead so you need to be read/writing files of at least 4 blocks before you see an improvement in the I/O reponse.

TCQ isn't for everybody. Yes it's being incorporated into the new SATA II standard because it's trying to catch up with SCSI which has used NCQ for years and SATA is being offered as a high-capacity cheap alternative to SCSI. But like SCSI, TCQ SATA is targeted at servers where the I/O demand warrants a command queue. In a desktop it's currently just a waste of money.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>