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?
> 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?!?
Nope, it doesnt affect the 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.
They are for all drives. The specs are just the speed of the interface cable,
and the benchmark speeds are for reading and writing data to the platters,
and that is always much slower than the data can be moved over the cable.
> So, I guess my SATA controllers are underperforming....
Previously KlausK <dinga@noone.com> 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?!?
Not typically. SATA does not have lower speeds than 150MB/s.
It can mean, however, that your controllers do not work at all.
> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2
> motherboard and the other with a Bad Axe).
Bad Axe?
> I knew not much about
> AHCI (didn't plan to RAID anyway),
AHCI is not RAID. It is the generic SATA controller driver,
supported by many newer SATA controllers.
> 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.
If the BIOS supports IDE emulation, then you should be fine,
unless you need SATA only features such as hotplugging.
> 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.
Entirely fine.
> The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I
> guess my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?
Interface transfer rates are not disk speeds. The interface allways
needs to be faster than the disk in order not to be a bottleneck.
To find out whether disk observed speed is fine, look into
the disk datasheet for its performance numbers. 70MB/s sustained
is a typical rate for a modern HDD.
"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5v8ubuF1jfpu5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Previously KlausK <dinga@noone.com> 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?!?
>
> Not typically. SATA does not have lower speeds than 150MB/s.
> It can mean, however, that your controllers do not work at all.
>
>> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2
>> motherboard and the other with a Bad Axe).
>
> Bad Axe?
>
Bad Axe is a nickname for the Intel 975XBX motherboard. My HDD speed seems
fine, compared with benchmark speeds posted on the Net.
On 2008-01-17 15:41, KlausK wrote:
> "Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:5v8ubuF1jfpu5U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Previously KlausK <dinga@noone.com> 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?!?
>>
>> Not typically. SATA does not have lower speeds than 150MB/s.
>> It can mean, however, that your controllers do not work at all.
>>
>>> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2
>>> motherboard and the other with a Bad Axe).
>>
>> Bad Axe?
>>
> Bad Axe is a nickname for the Intel 975XBX motherboard. My HDD speed seems
> fine, compared with benchmark speeds posted on the Net.
>
>
Also later Justin asked about his motherboard:
:"I wish my BLKDP35DPM has a kickass name.
:I wonder if we can make one up? "
It also has a nickname: 'Dragontail Peak'.
(I recall Intel reuses various geographic names as nicks).
>Previously KlausK <dinga@noone.com> 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?!?
>
>Not typically. SATA does not have lower speeds than 150MB/s.
>It can mean, however, that your controllers do not work at all.
>
>> Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2
>> motherboard and the other with a Bad Axe).
>
>Bad Axe?
>
>> I knew not much about
>> AHCI (didn't plan to RAID anyway),
>
>AHCI is not RAID. It is the generic SATA controller driver,
>supported by many newer SATA controllers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the BIOS supports IDE emulation, then you should be fine,
>unless you need SATA only features such as hotplugging.
>
>> 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.
>
>Entirely fine.
>
>> The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I
>> guess my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?
>
>Interface transfer rates are not disk speeds. The interface allways
>needs to be faster than the disk in order not to be a bottleneck.
>To find out whether disk observed speed is fine, look into
>the disk datasheet for its performance numbers. 70MB/s sustained
but he said 70MB/s max - I wondered what his sustained might be.
DonLogan wrote in news:fgetp355l47svlqnsgsl0br262ifrgfd9c@4ax.com
> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Previously KlausK <dinga@noone.com> 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?!?
> >
> > Not typically. SATA does not have lower speeds than 150MB/s.
> > It can mean, however, that your controllers do not work at all.
> >
> > > Situation: 2 PCs running XP SP2 (one built with a Bad Axe 2
> > > motherboard and the other with a Bad Axe).
> >
> > Bad Axe?
> >
> > > I knew not much about
> > > AHCI (didn't plan to RAID anyway),
> >
> > AHCI is not RAID. It is the generic SATA controller driver,
> > supported by many newer SATA controllers.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If the BIOS supports IDE emulation, then you should be fine,
> > unless you need SATA only features such as hotplugging.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Entirely fine.
> >
> > > The numbers seem low compared with the SATA 3.0 specification. So, I
> > > guess my SATA controllers are underperforming....Any comments?
> >
> > Interface transfer rates are not disk speeds. The interface allways
> > needs to be faster than the disk in order not to be a bottleneck.
> > To find out whether disk observed speed is fine, look into
> > the disk datasheet for its performance numbers. 70MB/s sustained
>
> but he said 70MB/s max -
> I wondered what his sustained might be.
What he said: 70MB/s max
>
> > is a typical rate for a modern HDD.
> >
> > Arno
Confused with SATA 
Linear Mode
