Confused with SATA

If I don't install SATA (AHCI) or RAID drivers during the O/S installation
(by pressing F6), does it mean that my SATA controllers perform at a lower
speed?!?

Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2 motherboard and
the other with a Bad Axe). I knew not much about AHCI (didn't plan to RAID
anyway), so I didn't think too much about HD controllers. Currently, SATA is
configured as IDE in the bios when installing XP on both systems. Device
Manager shows the Intel SATA controller.

Benchmark: I have 4 Seagate SATA 3.0 HDs on both systems and got
approximately 70 MB/s max and 170 MB/s burst rates.

The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I guess
my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?

In article <478eab4c$0$11553$607ed4bc@cv.net>, dinga@noone.com says...
> If I don't install SATA (AHCI) or RAID drivers during the O/S installation
> (by pressing F6), does it mean that my SATA controllers perform at a lower
> speed?!?
>
> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2 motherboard and
> the other with a Bad Axe). I knew not much about AHCI (didn't plan to RAID
> anyway), so I didn't think too much about HD controllers. Currently, SATA is
> configured as IDE in the bios when installing XP on both systems. Device
> Manager shows the Intel SATA controller.
>
> Benchmark: I have 4 Seagate SATA 3.0 HDs on both systems and got
> approximately 70 MB/s max and 170 MB/s burst rates.
>
> The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I guess
> my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?
>

Download HDTACH:

http://www.majorgeeks.com/download672.html

It will allow you to compare your drive to others.

Bill

KlausK wrote:
> If I don't install SATA (AHCI) or RAID drivers during the O/S
> installation (by pressing F6), does it mean that my SATA controllers
> perform at a lower speed?!?
>
> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2
> motherboard and the other with a Bad Axe). I knew not much about AHCI
> (didn't plan to RAID anyway), so I didn't think too much about HD
> controllers. Currently, SATA is configured as IDE in the bios when
> installing XP on both systems. Device Manager shows the Intel SATA
> controller.
> Benchmark: I have 4 Seagate SATA 3.0 HDs on both systems and got
> approximately 70 MB/s max and 170 MB/s burst rates.
>
> The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I
> guess my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?

I think you'll find those figures are about right. I've just run HD Tach on
a Maxtor 250 and a Samsung 500 and got a sustained read rate of 60 and 65
meg respectively.
Incidentally the Samsung had a higer burst rate at 224meg compared to ~160
for the Maxtor, but the burst rate isn't /that/ important anyway.
And no, running your drives in raid, unless the raid config includes raid0
(and then you definitely need a backup as you double the odds of something
going wrong), isn't faster. And even with raid0 it isn't that much quicker,
and not at all when you consider all the hassle you will get if one of the
drives fails.

SteveH

"KlausK" <dinga@noone.com> wrote in message
news:478eab4c$0$11553$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> If I don't install SATA (AHCI) or RAID drivers during the O/S installation
> (by pressing F6), does it mean that my SATA controllers perform at a lower
> speed?!?
>
> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2 motherboard
> and the other with a Bad Axe). I knew not much about AHCI (didn't plan to
> RAID anyway), so I didn't think too much about HD controllers. Currently,
> SATA is configured as IDE in the bios when installing XP on both systems.
> Device Manager shows the Intel SATA controller.
>
> Benchmark: I have 4 Seagate SATA 3.0 HDs on both systems and got
> approximately 70 MB/s max and 170 MB/s burst rates.
>
> The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I guess
> my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?
>
You did not need to load SATA driver because your BIOS is presenting the
SATA controller as IDE. If you install the SATA driver you can change the
BIOS setting. You might see a slight change in bemchmarks, but i suspect you
would not notice a change in real world performance.

Mike.

Michael Hawes <michael.hawes1remove@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> You did not need to load SATA driver because your BIOS is presenting the
> SATA controller as IDE. If you install the SATA driver you can change the
> BIOS setting. You might see a slight change in bemchmarks, but i suspect you
> would not notice a change in real world performance.
> Mike.

That sounds right - your bios had the SATA interface set for "Legacy Mode"
which makes it look like IDE; "Native Mode" would make it std SATA, which
XP does not have built-in drivers for. You may be able to change it after
the fact tho (you said it was Intel ICH). Read here:

http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/...20951+28353475

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=186471

if you google for similar phrases you'll find other references.

afterwards there shd be a SLIGHT performance improvment, as well as a
SLIGHTLY lower cpu loading. But the driver is bigger, using up more RAM.

FWIW, I found it worthwhile.

good luck.