Asus P5N32-SLI: Dual x16 - What Dreams Are Made On . . .
by Gary Key on October 27, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Firewire and USB Performance
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk might be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput.
Our first efforts at testing with an IDE or SATA drive as the "server" yielded very inconsistent results, since Windows XP sets up cache schemes to improve performance. Finally, we decided to try a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removed almost all overhead from the serving end. We also managed to turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" and our results were then consistent over many test runs.
We used 1GB of fast 3-2-2-8 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which is 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive using a Windows timing program written for AnandTech by our own Jason Clark. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher rates therefore mean better performance.
Our test is just one of many throughput tests, but in this benchmark, it is clear that the VIA Firewire 400 chip is faster than TI's 1394a chip. The NVIDIA nForce4 USB 2.0 controller is slightly faster than Intel’s solution. Unlike the other boards in this price range, the Asus P5N32-SLI Deluxe does not offer a Firewire 800 option.
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk might be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput.
Our first efforts at testing with an IDE or SATA drive as the "server" yielded very inconsistent results, since Windows XP sets up cache schemes to improve performance. Finally, we decided to try a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removed almost all overhead from the serving end. We also managed to turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" and our results were then consistent over many test runs.
We used 1GB of fast 3-2-2-8 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which is 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive using a Windows timing program written for AnandTech by our own Jason Clark. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher rates therefore mean better performance.
Our test is just one of many throughput tests, but in this benchmark, it is clear that the VIA Firewire 400 chip is faster than TI's 1394a chip. The NVIDIA nForce4 USB 2.0 controller is slightly faster than Intel’s solution. Unlike the other boards in this price range, the Asus P5N32-SLI Deluxe does not offer a Firewire 800 option.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
Those accustomed to looking at AMD Athlon64 Performance Scores are used to seeing numbers almost the same across motherboards because the memory controller is on the CPU. The Intel Memory Controller is in the chipset and performance varies much more depending on the chipset and the quality of the motherboard design.That is one reason we often test Latency in Intel MB tests. If you look at the Latency test results in this review you will see a fairly wide variation across the tested chipsets and motherboards for the Intel CPU. Athlon64 Latency tests would all be virtually the same with the memory controller a part of the processor.
toyota - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
how can motherboards make that much difference in gaming?? in the Doom3 benchmarks they range from 63 to 95 fps! i dont understand benchmarks like that and nobody else ever makes a comment. am i missing something?Gary Key - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
Good Day.....I revised the article statement about the Doom3 scores. I left it out on the final copy by mistake. We are still investigating the differences as an upcoming article from Randi on another nF4 Intel SLI board has scores higher than the numbers I have reported by a fair margin again. In fact, I will be testing the Abit board once it arrives with an disk image from my previous tests.
Due to the memory controller not being on the CPU (current Athlon64 family design) the Intel based motherboard design makes a great deal of difference not only from a chipset choice but also from how well a board manufacturer designs and implements the supporting components and bios.
Thank you.
xsilver - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
the 63fps is on another chipset, the chipset affects memory, hdd performance directly and everything else indirectly..the 95fps actually looks like an anomaly -- and AT member will have to confirm that (SLI setup in the NI8?)
so in fact the numbers are actually 75.3-79.4fps which is an acceptable range for the same chipset
many people forget the mobo is the heart of the system, it pays to get a good one :)
TransientBen - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
Mixing philosophy, classical literature and computer hardware reviews? Gotta love it. Though it's difficult to not get caught up in the philosophy and then question, "Is it worth $200 for a motherboard or a plane ticket to a new place?"There is so little time, afterall.
Always been a big Asus fan. Have one of the first (original slot a) Athlon boards still up and running after all these years - rock solid - and, more recently, a Z33A laptop that's blown me away with it's quality. I look forward to the inclusion of many of these features on future AMD boards.
noac - Saturday, November 12, 2005 - link
Hi, Im reading my manual and it says:DIMM_A1 (yellow), DIMM_A2 (black), DIMM_B1 (yellow), DIMM_B2 (black).
Channel A = DIMM_A1 and DIMM_A2
Channel B = DIMM_B1 and DIMM_B2
For dual-channel configuration, the total size of memory module(s) intalled per channel must be the same (DIMM_A1 + DIMM_A2, DIMM_B1 + DIMM_B2).
Anandtech:
Asus did an excellent job with the color coordination of the various peripheral slots and connectors. The DIMM module slots' color coordination is correct for dual channel setup.
My question which way is it? Im I getting the manual wrong? How to I palce my two mems for dualchannel?
Gary Key - Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - link
Email me if you have any issues or further questions please.Gary Key - Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - link
Sorry about the late reply...You place the memory in the two yellow DIMM slots for dual channel.
Gary Key - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
Depends on the time and place in my book. :-> However, considering where I could go for $200 at this point in time I will take the board. I also believe Dickens is queued up for the next article.
I had been concerned about Asus the past couple of releases as I honestly thought Intel had passed them on the high end side (useable features, stability, throw in Abit for performance) with their 925x and 955x boards until this gem landed on my doorstep.
I think the AMD version of this board should be equally adept and we should find out shortly. ;->
xsilver - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link
I can see asus and the other mobo companies making this refresh right after/before christmas and then obviously another refresh for M2 socket