Performances of SATA-ATA of Asus?

Have Someone a Benchmark, review, infos, experiences?

Thanks a lot.

Olindo

Dual WD Raptors, SATA RAID 0, ASUS P4P, Win2k, Sandra file system benchmark
score 52723. Everything is relative, I get 20736 with my 7200 rpm ATA 100
drive(s).

Single SATA non-RAID performance is in the range of 35000...I didn't record
the exact number.


"Olindo Pindaro" wrote in message
...
Have Someone a Benchmark, review, infos, experiences?

Thanks a lot.

Olindo

"Frank Weston" wrote in message
...
Dual WD Raptors, SATA RAID 0, ASUS P4P, Win2k, Sandra file system
benchmark
score 52723. Everything is relative, I get 20736 with my 7200 rpm ATA 100
drive(s).

Single SATA non-RAID performance is in the range of 35000...I didn't
record
the exact number.

Which ASUS board would that be? There's some architectural differences,
especially with the P4C800 and P4C800E, where the latter should use less CPU
and other system resources while using SATA.

Regards,
--
*Art

P4P, not P4C. To be specific, ASUS P4P800 Deluxe. The P4P800 Deluxe and
the P4P800 get the SATA RAID 0 capability by means of the Intel ICH5R
chipset. I think the P4C800 Deluxe has a Promise SATA RAID controller in
addition to the ICH5R chipset. SATA performance with the P4C and the
Promise controller might be better than the ICH5R, but I've never seen any
test results or discussion. Interestingly, most overclockers don't seem too
interested in drive system performance....everyone wants to talk about
processor speed and cooling.

"Arthur Hagen" wrote in message
...

"Frank Weston" wrote in message
...
Dual WD Raptors, SATA RAID 0, ASUS P4P, Win2k, Sandra file system
benchmark
score 52723. Everything is relative, I get 20736 with my 7200 rpm ATA
100
drive(s).

Single SATA non-RAID performance is in the range of 35000...I didn't
record
the exact number.

Which ASUS board would that be? There's some architectural differences,
especially with the P4C800 and P4C800E, where the latter should use less
CPU
and other system resources while using SATA.

Regards,
--
*Art

Frank Weston wrote:



Single SATA non-RAID performance is in the range of 35000...I didn't record
the exact number.

What does "35000" equate to in the real world?

It's all relative, and it all depends. But you probably already knew that.

As a guess, I'd say that my SATA RAID 0 drives read and write on average
about twice as fast as my older IDE drives. Maybe the straight SATA would
be about 1 1/2 times as fast. In the real world, some applications load
noticably faster and some run a little faster. Some don't. If you run a
lot of applications that work the drives hard, then maybe the extra speed
would be worthwhile. On the other hand, RAID 0 is for people and/or
applications where you don't worry too much about losing data. I personally
use the RAID 0 drives for all my program files and for Windows, stuff I can
reload or replace. All my critical data is stored on a set of IDE drives.

When all is said and done, the SATA RAID 0 was fun to research and set up,
gives me the feeling that I've got a really "bleeding" edge system, but is
probably a waste of time and money for the performance increase it gives me.
Straight SATA? The cables are a lot cleaner if nothing else.

"Keith Clark" wrote in message
...


Frank Weston wrote:



Single SATA non-RAID performance is in the range of 35000...I didn't
record
the exact number.

What does "35000" equate to in the real world?

Hi Frank,

I fully agree with you that it's all relative, for the reasons you gave.

What I was wondering though is if a "35000" SiSandra score is a "real world"
performance metric.

Does it equate directly to a specific sequential read/write throughput in
megabytes per second, for example? Or is it some arbitrary number?

Thanks,
Keith


Frank Weston wrote:

It's all relative, and it all depends. But you probably already knew that.

As a guess, I'd say that my SATA RAID 0 drives read and write on average
about twice as fast as my older IDE drives. Maybe the straight SATA would
be about 1 1/2 times as fast. In the real world, some applications load
noticably faster and some run a little faster. Some don't. If you run a
lot of applications that work the drives hard, then maybe the extra speed
would be worthwhile. On the other hand, RAID 0 is for people and/or
applications where you don't worry too much about losing data. I personally
use the RAID 0 drives for all my program files and for Windows, stuff I can
reload or replace. All my critical data is stored on a set of IDE drives.

When all is said and done, the SATA RAID 0 was fun to research and set up,
gives me the feeling that I've got a really "bleeding" edge system, but is
probably a waste of time and money for the performance increase it gives me.
Straight SATA? The cables are a lot cleaner if nothing else.

"Keith Clark" wrote in message
...


Frank Weston wrote:



Single SATA non-RAID performance is in the range of 35000...I didn't
record
the exact number.

What does "35000" equate to in the real world?

Thanks for your prompt & kind responses but i was a bit unclear. I am
interesto to fpremormace of pura Sata VS Sata-Ata converted to understand if
to buy the converter or not.

Thanks
Olindo

The sustained data transfer rate is limited by the hard drive data recording
density and rotational speed, not by the interface if it is UMDA 66, 100,
133, or SATA-ATA.

Phil Weldon,

"Olindo Pindaro" wrote in message
...
Have Someone a Benchmark, review, infos, experiences?

Thanks a lot.

Olindo

Talk about hard drive performance among overclockers is limited by the fact
that you can't do much about it; once you choose a drive, then you've picked
the sustained data transfer limit (which is depends on the linear recording
density and the rotational speed, not the interface for individual drives.)

Phil Weldon,

"Frank Weston" wrote in message
news
P4P, not P4C. To be specific, ASUS P4P800 Deluxe. The P4P800 Deluxe and
the P4P800 get the SATA RAID 0 capability by means of the Intel ICH5R
chipset. I think the P4C800 Deluxe has a Promise SATA RAID controller in
addition to the ICH5R chipset. SATA performance with the P4C and the
Promise controller might be better than the ICH5R, but I've never seen any
test results or discussion. Interestingly, most overclockers don't seem
too
interested in drive system performance....everyone wants to talk about
processor speed and cooling.
..
..
..