Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Storage

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old October 21, 2008, 08:20 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default 320GB 7200.10 vs. 500GB 7200.11 (both SATA2) getting slower speed!

I have 2 systems using the ASUS M2N-SLI DELUXE motherboard, with the latest official bios 1502 - 4GB of RAM, XP32 SP3 (nForce 570SLI chipset) with all latest drivers and updates - Drives are properly detected and run in 3G SATA2 mode, and jumper was removed.

In device manager, when double clicking on the nforce 579 controllers, and the SATA port, you have test options for speed and burst, on my 320GB, the burst is around 140~150MB/s and sustained MB around 75MB. With my 500GB 7200.11, I get a burst of only 90MB/s ! holy shit! My ATA133 gave better results, around 112MB burst - yet the sustained MB is only slightly higher - What gives ? The max speed in theory is 300MB/s, so why the hell do I even have to remove the 1.5GB jumper if the best SATA2 drive will not give even close to 300... But puzzles me is why the 500GB 7200.11 that is suppoed to be better gives such a drop in speed even with burst - when the drive is advertized for over 105MB/s sustained speed - how can the burst be so low and support those speeds.

Anybody else experience this ? I've confirmed the results in HDTune & HDTach, very disappointing considering my old Maxtor 120GB from years ago gives me a 114MB/s burst rate.

The drive has passed shortDST and LongDST and does not make any abnormal noise !
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old October 21, 2008, 08:52 PM
MacJunky's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Creston, BC
Posts: 1,718

My System Specs

Default

This might be similar to the 640GB models we were discussing in the 640 WD vs 640 Sea thread we have going somewhere.
Try re-testing with AHCI off.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old October 21, 2008, 09:00 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacJunky View Post
This might be similar to the 640GB models we were discussing in the 640 WD vs 640 Sea thread we have going somewhere.
Try re-testing with AHCI off.
The nForce 570 SATA controller does not support AHCI - it's running in IDE mode, but somehow NVIDIA has implamented NCQ and other features in its drivers. I tried with both NCQ on and off. the AHCI/IDE is for interfacing and support for hotswap/NCQ, and should not affect speed.

What puzzles me is why an older generation drive, on the SAME controller, same drivers, gives a 60% increase in burst rate....
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old October 21, 2008, 10:59 PM
MacJunky's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Creston, BC
Posts: 1,718

My System Specs

Default

And yet somehow turning AHCI on does something that does affect speed for some newer Seagate drives.
We were wondering how Seagate could have buggered up their drives in the other thread as well.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old October 22, 2008, 02:47 AM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Terrace, BC
Posts: 558
Default

First off all, NO drive has ever achieved 'rated' speeds. Cept for maybe a 10 gazillion dollar 16 way UNIX mainframe running AIX and Fiberchannel RAID.
Even ultra320 does not do 320 MB/sec. If it did, I dont think nerds like us will compete. The best I can do is 180-200 MB with my RAID 5. As a matter of fact, its usually not the disc spin, its the amount of travel the heads have to travel. THats why its impossible to bear 6 drives comprised of 9.1 IBM UltraSCSI 160 RAID 5. ITs freakin fast. Faster than your sata 2 will ever be. The platters are smaller.
__________________
Acer 5920G ( Stock Air ) no OC:P
At least its DX10!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old October 22, 2008, 03:11 PM
Dashock's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,938
Default

I have run all the tests on both my drives and for me my 500gb is faster,quieter and cooler and has not broken down yet. I had to return 3 of my 320gb's yet 3 of my 500's are running strong. Copying files on the 500 is way faster and all in all i am very happy with my drive. Out of curiosity what firmware version do you have i wonder if they tweaked the drives and messed it up with the new revisions ?
__________________
Intel Xeon E3110 @ 3.0ghz
XFX 8800 GT Alpha Dog Edition
Asus P5Q-E
Mushkin Ascent Redline 8000 4gb DDR2 @ 1066 5-5-5-15 2.05v
OCZ 600W GameXstream
Seagate 7200.11 500gb
Seagate 7200.10 320gb
Antec Spot Cool
Logitech X-230
Samsung 32" 720P HDTV



Coolermaster Cosmos S/
Swiftech Mcp655/ MCR-320-QP/ 6X Noctua NF-P12'S/ Swiftech Apogee GT/ Swiftech Mcw-60/ Swiftech Micro-Res.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old October 22, 2008, 03:36 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashock View Post
I have run all the tests on both my drives and for me my 500gb is faster,quieter and cooler and has not broken down yet. I had to return 3 of my 320gb's yet 3 of my 500's are running strong. Copying files on the 500 is way faster and all in all i am very happy with my drive. Out of curiosity what firmware version do you have i wonder if they tweaked the drives and messed it up with the new revisions ?
Well my 500GB do run quiet, although my 320GBs ran quite too (I had the GOOD 320GB firmwares pre AAK :D) as far as the 500GB good question :) SD15 if not mistaken. :)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old October 22, 2008, 03:41 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacJunky View Post
And yet somehow turning AHCI on does something that does affect speed for some newer Seagate drives.
We were wondering how Seagate could have buggered up their drives in the other thread as well.
That's odd because AHCI / IDE is an interface option, shouldn't affect drive speed by that much - and besides I will have to rebench the drives, if I recall they did good for sustained data transfer in HDTune, measuring at over 100MB, and the lowest end was around 60-75MB, but the burst speed was 60% lower, that's just a matter of principle really the drive runs fast for the most part - I am also a bit concerned of the extreme number of ECC corrections on the fly, more than ANY previous seagates - are they cutting corners and making crappy drives and relying on the robust ECC, 20% of that bandwidth is dedicated to ECC anyways, so it must be damn good - My 8 year old Maxtor drive I use sometimes as external USB enclosure etorage has only a FRACTION of the ECC, where my new 500GB seagates have 600 billion of those
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old October 22, 2008, 05:18 PM
MacJunky's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Creston, BC
Posts: 1,718

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarKStar View Post
(I had the GOOD 320GB firmwares pre AAK :D) as far as the 500GB good question :) SD15 if not mistaken. :)
My 500s are SD15 and 640 is SD13, 250 is 3.AAF it would seem.

DarkStar, what application(s) are you using for SMART reporting? Perhaps I need to update HDTune, it will not report any SMART info for any of my drives.
Here are my 640(left), 500(mid) and 250(right) listed.
I have another 500 but it is in the guts of a USB enclosure sitting in a 5.25" bay for quick removal so I did not bother trying to get SMART info on it.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old October 22, 2008, 07:47 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4
Default

looks like the burst rate issue (which to me is a SATA/150, no SATA/300 issue) is a problem with the 7200.11 core itself since it seems to be found across the 7200.11 range.
__________________
Asus M3N72-D 750a MB
AMD BE-2400 (OC @ 3GHz)
4GB (2x2) Corsair Dominator 1066
Seagate 7200.11 640GB
HP LP2475w
Win XP Pro SP3
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes