Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Thread!

[sayam]

the raid is eathier not listed in there or when i hook up my maxtor it dissapears

[Hawk_abx]

Did you setup RAID? If so, list what is in your machine with the drives and the ports they are on. Thanks. . . . That will make it easier.

Originally posted by sayam
the raid is eathier not listed in there or when i hook up my maxtor it dissapears

[sayam]

ok here it goes:

2 sata raptors on the intel raid (yes i have the raid working)
2 cd-rom's on primary ide (i want my maxtor and burner intead, at least till i get a 3 drive cable)

also - i tried the secondaary IDE port and it still didnt work

[DCF]

OK here's my results of benching, as per Hawk's request.

The system:

Motherboard: Asus P4C800-E Deluxe BIOS 1008
CPU: 3.0 GHz 800 FSB P4C CPU running at stock
RAM: 2x 512M Corsair XMS TwinX 3200LL at 2-2-3-6 (Trcd=3) @ 200 MHz
Video: ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
Audio: SB Audigy2 in PCI Slot 4

Disk Drives: 2x Western Digital Raptor 10k RPM SATA 36GB on IC5HR RAID Configured as RAID0 with 32k stripe size

DVD: Only other storage device is a Liteon XJ-HD165H DVD ROM as Master device on Secondary IDE.

Notes: Onboard Promise controller, onboard sound, onboard firewire disabled in the BIOS.

RAID array contains the OS: Windows XP SP1, and was fully defragmented before the test.

RAID array total size: 68.9 GB. Free space: 56.1 GB (81% free)

Intel Application Accelerator Raid Edition 3.5 Reports:
Intel RAID driver: 3.5.0.2568
Intel RAID storage kit: 3.5.0.2600

Firmware of both drives: 35.06K35
Manufactured: 25 May 2003 Malaysia


The test method:

The following benchmarks were used:
Sioft Sandra Standard 2003.7.9.73
HD Tach 2.6.1
ATTO Disk Benchmark

The conditions tested were the Chipset BIOS option "Delay ICH Transaction" set to Enable and Disable.

For each condition each benchmark was run three times.

The system was rebooted once before each condition was tested.

The benchmarks were run in the following order: Sandra, HDTach, ATTO, Sandra, HDTach, ATTO, Sandra, HDTach, ATTO


The results:

The tabulated and summarized results can be found at: http://members.rogers.com/botekin/benchmarks.htm

Note that Hawk's results are for a 128k stripe size, and Sandra testing was with a 511MB file, whereas my Sandra was using a 1023 MB File.

Images (linked as they are large jpegs, I apologize) of each trial


ICH Transaction Delay Enabled: Sandra

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

ICH Transaction Delay Disabled: Sandra

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3


ICH Transaction Delay Enabled: HDTach

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

ICH Transaction Delay Disabled: HDTach

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3


ICH Transaction Delay Enabled: ATTO

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

ICH Transaction Delay Disabled: ATTO

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3


Conclusions

There were some interesting things I discovered doing this test.

1) I am experiencing, for some reason, large variances in performance. I had runs of Sandra better than Hawk's and worse. HDTach also shows a very noisy graph, with large ranges between min and max values, although the average performance remains good.

2) Hawk's 128k stripe size seems to be much more efficient according to ATTO. However, ATTO was exhibiting odd behaviour on my array, as files 128k and up reported uniformly a read speed of 63803 or 63893 MB/s. Almost as though either that was the limit of what it could test for, or more likely, some limit in the performance of the RAID controller, possibly as a function of stripe size or the disks I am using.

3) Overall, Hawk's performance was either just above or just below mine. However the larger variances I am experiencing, coupled to the steady performance in ATTO are making me reconsider my 32k stripe size and going for a larger 64k or 128k size.

4) Disabling ICH Delay caused HDTach to use more CPU, and overall a small decrease in the average performance of the benchmarks.

[sayam]

SiSoftware Sandra

51606kb/s

Test Status
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Windows Disk Cache Used : No
Use Overlapped I/O : Yes
IO Queue Depth : 8 request(s)
Test File Size : 511MB
File Server Optimised : No

Benchmark Breakdown
Buffered Read : 112 MB/s
Sequential Read : 73 MB/s
Random Read : 12 MB/s
Buffered Write : 22 MB/s
Sequential Write : 84 MB/s
Random Write : 21 MB/s
Average Access Time : 4 ms (estimated)

Drive
Drive Type : Hard Disk
Total Size : 68.9GB
Free Space : 63.7GB, 92%

how can I improve this speed, i have the same drives as you
my array size is 128kb
i dont have intel accelerator installed

[Hawk_abx]

Nice job, so the ICH Delayed Trans & 128K stripe size make the difference. . . . .

BYW, you got some nice score going there. I would say that where you are now is perfect. . .

Originally posted by DCF
OK here's my results of benching, as per Hawk's request.

The system:

Motherboard: Asus P4C800-E Deluxe BIOS 1008
CPU: 3.0 GHz 800 FSB P4C CPU running at stock
RAM: 2x 512M Corsair XMS TwinX 3200LL at 2-2-3-6 (Trcd=3) @ 200 MHz
Video: ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
Audio: SB Audigy2 in PCI Slot 4

Disk Drives: 2x Western Digital Raptor 10k RPM SATA 36GB on IC5HR RAID Configured as RAID0 with 32k stripe size

DVD: Only other storage device is a Liteon XJ-HD165H DVD ROM as Master device on Secondary IDE.

Notes: Onboard Promise controller, onboard sound, onboard firewire disabled in the BIOS.

RAID array contains the OS: Windows XP SP1, and was fully defragmented before the test.

RAID array total size: 68.9 GB. Free space: 56.1 GB (81% free)

Intel Application Accelerator Raid Edition 3.5 Reports:
Intel RAID driver: 3.5.0.2568
Intel RAID storage kit: 3.5.0.2600

Firmware of both drives: 35.06K35
Manufactured: 25 May 2003 Malaysia


The test method:

The following benchmarks were used:
Sioft Sandra Standard 2003.7.9.73
HD Tach 2.6.1
ATTO Disk Benchmark

The conditions tested were the Chipset BIOS option "Delay ICH Transaction" set to Enable and Disable.

For each condition each benchmark was run three times.

The system was rebooted once before each condition was tested.

The benchmarks were run in the following order: Sandra, HDTach, ATTO, Sandra, HDTach, ATTO, Sandra, HDTach, ATTO


The results:

The tabulated and summarized results can be found at: http://members.rogers.com/botekin/benchmarks.htm

Note that Hawk's results are for a 128k stripe size, and Sandra testing was with a 511MB file, whereas my Sandra was using a 1023 MB File.

Images (linked as they are large jpegs, I apologize) of each trial


ICH Transaction Delay Enabled: Sandra

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

ICH Transaction Delay Disabled: Sandra

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3


ICH Transaction Delay Enabled: HDTach

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

ICH Transaction Delay Disabled: HDTach

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3


ICH Transaction Delay Enabled: ATTO

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

ICH Transaction Delay Disabled: ATTO

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3


Conclusions

There were some interesting things I discovered doing this test.

1) I am experiencing, for some reason, large variances in performance. I had runs of Sandra better than Hawk's and worse. HDTach also shows a very noisy graph, with large ranges between min and max values, although the average performance remains good.

2) Hawk's 128k stripe size seems to be much more efficient according to ATTO. However, ATTO was exhibiting odd behaviour on my array, as files 128k and up reported uniformly a read speed of 63803 or 63893 MB/s. Almost as though either that was the limit of what it could test for, or more likely, some limit in the performance of the RAID controller, possibly as a function of stripe size or the disks I am using.

3) Overall, Hawk's performance was either just above or just below mine. However the larger variances I am experiencing, coupled to the steady performance in ATTO are making me reconsider my 32k stripe size and going for a larger 64k or 128k size.

4) Disabling ICH Delay caused HDTach to use more CPU, and overall a small decrease in the average performance of the benchmarks.

[Hawk_abx]

Yes, Install Intel AA v. 3.5 and it should change your score.

Originally posted by sayam
SiSoftware Sandra

51606kb/s

Test Status
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Windows Disk Cache Used : No
Use Overlapped I/O : Yes
IO Queue Depth : 8 request(s)
Test File Size : 511MB
File Server Optimised : No

Benchmark Breakdown
Buffered Read : 112 MB/s
Sequential Read : 73 MB/s
Random Read : 12 MB/s
Buffered Write : 22 MB/s
Sequential Write : 84 MB/s
Random Write : 21 MB/s
Average Access Time : 4 ms (estimated)

Drive
Drive Type : Hard Disk
Total Size : 68.9GB
Free Space : 63.7GB, 92%

how can I improve this speed, i have the same drives as you
my array size is 128kb
i dont have intel accelerator installed

[vicbyrd]

Nice job DCF!

[MaverickSY19]

DCF one thing I noticed that you do not have that you need to get. BIOS 1009. Your still using 1008. 1009 updated the Promise Controller ROM again and when used in conjunction with the new Promise drivers 1.0.1.30 will increase your performance.

I take that back. I just noticed you didn't test the Promise, only the Intel RAID, hehe, DOH.

[marcsterix]

Pentium 4 2.4GHz 800MHz FSB
P4C800 Deluxe - BIOS upgraded to 1007, then 1008
2 x Kingston KVR400X64C25/256MB DDR400 CL2.5 on slots A/B1
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
F&C Switching PSU 400W
Maxtor 60G 7200rpm HDD on Primary IDE Master
Creative DVD-ROM 6x on Secondary IDE Master

WinXP just doesn't want to install or work on this system. I get errors during installation (while copying files I get errors that the sistem didn't copy them correctly, and when it's starts the actual installation it gives a fatal error that it doesnt recognize some signature or other).

If I install WinXP on the same HDD on my old system and transfer it back on the new build, after POST startup I get the blue screen of death...


I tested my memory with Doc Memory and it didn't give me any errors after 2 hrs of testing. Swapped Everything out except for the RAM, PSU and the Mobo.

It looks like from other threads I might get this working through BIOS settings...

Any suggestions?

[Fox_abx]

I have a question concerning memory for the P4C800-E Deluxe...
Does the run with Geil DDR400 Golden Dragon Series memory and with Corsair DDR400 LL memory???

[chung_chang]

Originally posted by Fox
I have a question concerning memory for the P4C800-E Deluxe...
Does the run with Geil DDR400 Golden Dragon Series memory and with Corsair DDR400 LL memory???

I have the same question except for TwinMos(CH5) or Buffalo(BH5) memory running 5:4 or 3:2 dividers at high fsb(over 280fsb). Thx.

[MaverickSY19]

Try it and we will know I dont think many people have tried that man different things with these boards yet.

[chung_chang]

Originally posted by MaverickSY19
Try it and we will know I dont think many people have tried that man different things with these boards yet.

Man, no one reading this thread has any of these memory? I may just have to try it and risk hitting fsb wall just like I did with P4P800. Then, I'm stuck with a $200 board. Already spent too much on my existing memory so I can't afford XMS. Maybe I should wait until Abit IC7 MAX 3 come out on 7/21 and hope for a review between these 2 boards.

[solofly]

So far I’m not impressed. Much more difficult to setup than the P4P800 was. I had conflicts with Audigy2 and had to swap PCI cards around for a while. Then I find out my RAM isn’t stable at the same frequency and timing anymore. Like I said, not impressed. The only thing that will save this mobo is overclocking which I need more time with...