Disk Controller Performance

The AnandTech iPeak test is designed to measure "pure" hard disk controller performance, and in this case, we keep the hard drive as consistent as possible while varying the hard drive controller. The idea is to measure the performance of each hard drive controller with the same hard drive.

We played back our raw files that are recorded I/O operations when running a real world benchmark - the entire Winstone 2004 suite. Intel's iPeak utility was then used to play back the trace file of all I/O operations that took place during a single run of Business Winstone 2004 and MCC Winstone 2004. To try to isolate performance differences to the controllers that we are testing we use the Seagate 7200.10 Barracuda 320GB 7200 RPM drive in both SATA and IDE offerings for our tests. The drive is formatted before each test run and a composite average of three tests on each controller interface is tabulated in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark.

iPeak gives a mean service time in milliseconds; in other words, the average time that each drive took to fulfill each I/O operation. In order to make the data more understandable, we report the scores as an average number of I/O operations per second so that higher scores translate into better performance. This number is meaningless as far as hard disk performance is concerned, as it is just the number of I/O operations completed in a second. However, the scores are useful for comparing "pure" performance of the storage controllers in this case.

iPeak Business Winstone Hard Disk - SATA/IDE

iPeak MM Content Creation Hard Disk - SATA/IDE

The performance patterns hold steady across both Multimedia Content I/O and Business I/O, with the NVIDIA nForce 500 based SATA controllers providing a slight improvement in I/O operations over the Intel, JMicron, and Silicon Image SATA controllers. This has been a historical trend between the two manufacturers with the NVIDIA controllers generally having a higher throughput than the Intel chipsets. We look forward to seeing how well the ATI SB600 will perform with an Intel processor in the upcoming DFI ICFX-3200 based on the RD600 chipset.

Of note in our SATA tests is the excellent performance generated by the JMicron controller logic that scored higher than the Intel ICH7R or ICH8 based SATA controllers in the Business Winstone test. However, in the read and write heavy Content Creation tests we see the Intel SATA controllers placing ahead of the JMicron offerings. After reviewing the test script results we noticed the write operations of the JMicron JMB363 chipset was about 3% slower than the Intel ICH chipsets while being around 2% faster in read operations.

The VIA VT6410 controller offered the best performance in the IDE tests with the JMicron JMB363 finishing last. During initial testing with the JMicron chipset we noticed several boards having issues with the optical drives being stuck in PIO mode resulting in terrible performance. However, this issue was solved with BIOS updates from the motherboard suppliers. We do want to note that unless you utilize the JMicron JMB363 for RAID operation then do not load the JMicron driver or allow Windows Update to install the newly released driver. Installing this driver will usually result in sporadic operation of the IDE port or failure to recognize your optical drive.

Overclocking Performance Disk Controller Performance - RAID
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • vailr - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link

    Re:
    quote:

    Intel in their infinite wisdom decided to pull PATA support from this chipset when over 98% of optical drives are still based on PATA technology.

    So, how about the (yet unreleased) ATI and NVidia Conroe chipset boards?
    Does either chipset include PATA support?
    Thanks.
  • Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Does either chipset include PATA support?


    They both have native support for two drives.
  • n7 - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link

    Gary, always love your reviews!
    I read thru the whole thing, & it was a good read :)

    Meticulous detail, as well great sarcastic humor as well.

    I look forward to the following parts.
  • Sho - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link

    In an earlier AnandTech article, the one about Kentsfield support, it was written that Gigabyte would bring a revision 2.0 of all of their P965 boards to the market in mid-October, including the DS3. The article does not mention whether the board tested was this new rev 2,9 or any other. Could that be clarified?

    And does anybody know what was changed/fixed in 2.0?
  • Gary Key - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link

    Gigabyte has not released any further details on the revision 2 boards except for the fact they were addressing some layout issues and possible BIOS improvements. The only major change we could see them making would be going from a three phase power design on the DS3 to a five phase system as an example. The board we tested is still revision 1.
  • Sho - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link

    Thanks!
  • dreddly - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link

    'caliper' should be caliber on AB9Pro page

    Great work on this roundup though, impressive job.
  • Puddyglum1 - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link

    quote:

    However, the board is not without its shortcomings. We certainly have an issue with this board...
    Which board? The topic of the previous page was about sound cards vs. onboard audio. Is there a missing page? Why is there a picture of the Asus heatsink and no mention of which board is the preferred of the bunch?

    Just some questions =)

    Great article for Cost/Performance comparison.
  • Puddyglum1 - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link

    Woah, there's a lot more there now. Thanks for the explanation.
    quote:

    Overall, the Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 performed the best in our benchmarks when not overclocked.

    I just built a workstation for a client using the 965P-DS3, but the board was DOA. I went to a local shop and picked up a 965P-S3 instead (seeing as how the only main feature missing was the solid capacitors of the -DS3), and it performed just as well as the DS3. For $110, a GA-965P-S3 would be the best Cost/Performance of the 965P bunch, in my unresearched opinion.
  • JarredWalton - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link

    Now you're skipping ahead to part 2! :p

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now