Intel P965: Mid-Range Performance Sector Roundup
by Gary Key on October 20, 2006 9:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Disk Controller Performance - RAID
Due to the fact that we are testing two new chipsets in the form of the Intel ICH8R and JMicron JMB363 we decided to present a variety of RAID results in our P965 roundup. We utilize the same AnandTech iPeak test that is designed to measure "pure" hard disk controller performance. This consists of the Business Winstone 2004 and MCC Winstone 2004 benchmarks that provide a very good representation of general desktop performance. We also use the same Seagate 7200.10 Barracuda 320GB 7200 RPM SATA drive and average three test runs for the results. In our RAID 1+0 (10) and 0+1 testing, we utilize a four hard drive setup and a three drive combination for our RAID 5 testing.
In a reversal of our single drive tests we see the Intel ICH8R leading the NVIDIA nForce 500 controller in our RAID 0 and RAID 1+0 test results. While the NVIDIA controller still finished ahead of the older ICH7R we see enough improvements in both the ICH8R chipset and drivers to finish first. This surprised us and after running our tests on the ASUS P5N32-SLI Premium (nF590SLI Intel) motherboard we found NVIDIA back in first place with results about 2% better than the ICH8R. However, since this board was not available in time for our roundup the results stand with Intel placing first. We feel like our ASUS P5N-SLI board is just not performing up to par in these particular hard drive tests.
We see the JMicron JMB363 controller finishing behind both the NVIDIA and Intel chipsets in both RAID 0 tests resulting in a slight role reversal from our single drive results. In our Business Winstone test the JMicron results fall behind the ICH8R RAID 1+0 results and NVIDIA 0+1 tests compared to our single SATA drive tests where this controller almost finished first. After reviewing our test scripts we noticed that the 2% read performance advantage this chipset had over the Intel offerings in single drive testing was flipped to a disadvantage of around 1% in RAID 0. We feel like this is a driver issue as the JMicron performed very well in our Content Creation tests where it finished ahead of the NVIDIA chipset in RAID 0.
Our RAID 1+0 and 0+1 tests were slightly surprising as we did not expect our on-board controllers to perform as well as they did when compared to the RAID 0 setup. This is due to our Seagate test drive as our Western Digital 150GB Raptor setup on the same controllers typically showed a 2% to 4% advantage for the RAID 0 setup. Our RAID 5 results were not a surprise as the CPU overhead incurred from either the NVIDIA or Intel drivers generally result in dismal write performance when compared to dedicated hardware based solutions from Highpoint, Broadcom, or Areca.
What we did not expect was the NVIDIA controller performing up to 5% better in RAID 5 after reviewing the RAID 0, 1+0, and 0+1 results between the chipsets. The difference turned out to be improved write speeds with the NVIDIA controller especially in the Content Creation test. Our test scripts showed excellent read speeds from our native chipset based controllers but write speeds were sometimes up to 55% less than our HighPoint RocketRAID 2320 dedicated hardware controller we will be reviewing in the near future. We found the Intel Matrix software interface was generally easier to use to setup up our various RAID arrays although the revised NVIDIA control panel with the nForce 500 series is significantly better now.
Due to the fact that we are testing two new chipsets in the form of the Intel ICH8R and JMicron JMB363 we decided to present a variety of RAID results in our P965 roundup. We utilize the same AnandTech iPeak test that is designed to measure "pure" hard disk controller performance. This consists of the Business Winstone 2004 and MCC Winstone 2004 benchmarks that provide a very good representation of general desktop performance. We also use the same Seagate 7200.10 Barracuda 320GB 7200 RPM SATA drive and average three test runs for the results. In our RAID 1+0 (10) and 0+1 testing, we utilize a four hard drive setup and a three drive combination for our RAID 5 testing.
In a reversal of our single drive tests we see the Intel ICH8R leading the NVIDIA nForce 500 controller in our RAID 0 and RAID 1+0 test results. While the NVIDIA controller still finished ahead of the older ICH7R we see enough improvements in both the ICH8R chipset and drivers to finish first. This surprised us and after running our tests on the ASUS P5N32-SLI Premium (nF590SLI Intel) motherboard we found NVIDIA back in first place with results about 2% better than the ICH8R. However, since this board was not available in time for our roundup the results stand with Intel placing first. We feel like our ASUS P5N-SLI board is just not performing up to par in these particular hard drive tests.
We see the JMicron JMB363 controller finishing behind both the NVIDIA and Intel chipsets in both RAID 0 tests resulting in a slight role reversal from our single drive results. In our Business Winstone test the JMicron results fall behind the ICH8R RAID 1+0 results and NVIDIA 0+1 tests compared to our single SATA drive tests where this controller almost finished first. After reviewing our test scripts we noticed that the 2% read performance advantage this chipset had over the Intel offerings in single drive testing was flipped to a disadvantage of around 1% in RAID 0. We feel like this is a driver issue as the JMicron performed very well in our Content Creation tests where it finished ahead of the NVIDIA chipset in RAID 0.
Our RAID 1+0 and 0+1 tests were slightly surprising as we did not expect our on-board controllers to perform as well as they did when compared to the RAID 0 setup. This is due to our Seagate test drive as our Western Digital 150GB Raptor setup on the same controllers typically showed a 2% to 4% advantage for the RAID 0 setup. Our RAID 5 results were not a surprise as the CPU overhead incurred from either the NVIDIA or Intel drivers generally result in dismal write performance when compared to dedicated hardware based solutions from Highpoint, Broadcom, or Areca.
What we did not expect was the NVIDIA controller performing up to 5% better in RAID 5 after reviewing the RAID 0, 1+0, and 0+1 results between the chipsets. The difference turned out to be improved write speeds with the NVIDIA controller especially in the Content Creation test. Our test scripts showed excellent read speeds from our native chipset based controllers but write speeds were sometimes up to 55% less than our HighPoint RocketRAID 2320 dedicated hardware controller we will be reviewing in the near future. We found the Intel Matrix software interface was generally easier to use to setup up our various RAID arrays although the revised NVIDIA control panel with the nForce 500 series is significantly better now.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
The DS4 will be reviewed. Gigabyte has stated they will not bring it into the US but we are still trying to convince them (really more like begging and calling our marketing rep at home on the weekends to beg some more) to release it in the States. The copper backplate can be removed off the DQ6 and I really did not see any benefit with it on in testing. It makes for a good rebate with the price of copper today. ;-)The AHCI issues stay the way they are at this time. It is frustrating to say the least. I was being a bit sarcastic in my statement but it is a little harder than it should be to enable AHCI on the ICH8R.
Ryan Norton - Sunday, October 22, 2006 - link
I'm in Taiwan, so the DS4 is all over the place :)Capt Caveman - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Not sure if you live in the US or not but Gigabyte is not bringing/selling the DS4 to the US.Also, the copper backplate for the DQ-6, can be removed with a tworx(sp?) screwdriver. At XS, many just went to Home Depot and got longer screws for their HSF.
lopri - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Excellent review that'll help potential buyers enormously. A couple things:1. Error in the chart (page 14): There is a discrepency between the chart (3-4-3) and the commentary (3-4-4) :)
2. In memory review Wesley always put tRP ahead of tRCD, while Gary does the opposite. It'd be nice to have a consistency for less experienced users!
3. Gary, did you test the P5W-DH with wirless module installed or without? I recently found out the wirless module could skew CPU/memory-sensitive benchmarks on this board big time. I'm not sure if my finding is true in general, but if it is, then the comparison between a board with such feature and a board without it can be unfair.
4. Can Sandra Unbuffered be really an indication of general performace? @400FSB, setting memory ratio 4:5 (DDR2-1000/4-4-3) boosted the score by a whooping 400~500 MB/s from the ratio 1:1 (DDR2-800/3-3-3), which never realized for other tests in a meaningful way. Oh this is about my own testing. :D
Thanks for the great review.
Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Thanks for the comments.1. The timing error is corrected. Jarred and I were editing at the same and we found out after the article went live that our saves to the final copy would overwrite each other. Bad timing for several other mistakes that have been cleared up now.
2. Wes is wrong. Just kidding, we will get on the same page. :)
3. I turned off the WiFi on the PSW-DH. The scores were even worse with it on. Not that they are bad but the board runs a little looser timings in order to overclock at the high end. DFI also does this with their boards targeted for the overclocking market.
4. Sandra Unbuffered can be an indication of performance in apps that are memory sensitive. This is not always the case but it is one of the better yardsticks available at this time.
Lothar - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Do you plan on comparing the Gigabyte DS3 vs the S3 version for us to know if there are performance/overclocking issues with the S3?The only difference so far between the DS3 and S3 is "All Solid Capacitors".
Are there any other difference I'm missing?
The S3 is $110, and the DS3 is $150.
I have a hard time to justify paying an extra $40 for only "all solid capacitors"
The term is nothing but marketing to me so far.
I haven't seen any proof of a performance/overclocking issue between the two boards.
If you or anyone else plan on testing the differences or can provide something(Ex: any review link) stating otherwise, that would be great.
Nakazato - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
In theory, cleaner power.... but aside from the theory, the onboard sound does start flaking out the higher you go. This has been true on 2/2 boards I've tried it on. So an add-in card is needed for the higher overclocks... 460+ish.goinginstyle - Monday, October 23, 2006 - link
No issue here with the Biostar board at 500FSB and the Realtek ALC-883. It sounds fine but a X-FI is still the way to go for gaming.Gary Key - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
Yes, the S3 will be in part two. :)
Lothar - Saturday, October 21, 2006 - link
The only other differences I found were RAID support and 2 extra USB ports...It's not worth the $40 price difference if performance and overclocking results are the same IMO.