Firewire and USB Performance

It is really difficult to put together a simple, repeatable, and consistent test to measure USB and Firewire Performance. Since our goal was to make this a standard part of motherboard testing, we needed a benchmark that was reasonably simple to run that would also provide consistent results on the same test bed. 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 just 1GB of fast 2-2-2 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our stock file was 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 or 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.

Firewire, USB & Storage Performance


Sapphire PURE Innovation uses the commonly available and good-performing VIA Firewire 400 chip. Firewire 800 is 40 to 55% faster than a drive connected to Firewire 400, but it is still rare to find Firewire 800 integrated into motherboards.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in our testing was the poor performance of USB 2.0 on the Sapphire ATI. ATI had promised improvement in USB performance in the SB450 compared to the earlier SB400, but we could see little improvement in our USB 2.0 tests. ATI has responded that our USB 2.0 tests measure sustained throughput, which is relevant in USB operations only with applications like the USB 2.0 hard drive that we use for this test. ATI states that "burst" USB 2.0 throughput has been improved in the SB450 to near the same levels of competitive USB 2.0 peak performance. Perhaps even more important, ATI say that they are aware of the issues with USB 2.0 performance and these will be fully corrected - sustained and peak performance - in the SB600 south bridge.

Since our ramdisk/apptimer File Copy is measuring sustained throughput, we also compared performance of ATI IDE/SATA/Sil SATA2 using this same test procedure. The performance of ATI IDE remains excellent, but SATA and SATA 2 performance are very competitive, yet not standout as in the iPeak storage benchmarks of the same controllers. This lends some credibility to ATI's comments that their USB 2.0 performance is competitive when burst performance is measured.

Disk Controller Performance Ethernet Performance
Comments Locked

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • QueBert - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    I like the white, but not a big fan of red. As for it being the "first white motherboard we've seen" There was a really sweet looking one by I believe, Epox. Platinum colored PCB with blue and gold on the board. The color scheme of this Sapphire is different, and different is good. I hate green/red PCB's.
  • beorntheold - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    Under Gaming Performance:
    "... If you keep in mind that the orange bar represents the same NVIDIA 6800 Ultra used to test the other boards in this review, you can clearly see that the Sapphire ATI is at or near the top in most game tests..."
    There is either an error in the graph or in the text - because the orange bar clearly says
    nV 7800 GTX.
  • Olaf van der Spek - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    > This number is meaningless as far as hard disk performance is concerned as it is just the number of IO operations completed in a second.

    What exactly is meant here?
    Isn't more completed operations per second better?
  • Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    I meant that the operations per second is meaningless as a SPECIFICATION of hard drive performance. Yes, more operations per second is better, but you will never see iPeak ops/sec quoted as a specification.
  • roel - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    And what about support for linux?
    Will it boot? Will it be fast as well?
    I'd like to know.

    roel
  • kevykev - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    What is with the stupid fish names though? How ridiculous.
  • TheInvincibleMustard - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    Actually, that was one of the first things to catch my eye ... Not the fish, but the jaguar, with the silkscreened logo looking almost exactly the same as the automobile company (Google Images if you're curious). The actual leaping cat is positioned slightly differently between the two, but the similarity is remarkable.

    If I had better image manipulation on this machine I'm at, I'd whip up a side-by-side comparison to better illustrate (hehe) my point.
  • shoRunner - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    All i can say is drool, this definately looks like a very promising board, if they can fix the issue with the USB transfer rates(even without a fix its will still be very competative, how often do most ppl transfer huge amounts of data over USB?). What i still want to see is one of these boards with the integrate graphics and a DVI port.
  • Stas - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    Just as I expected: nVidia is whooped. ATi + AMD = Performance
  • Zebo - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    Looks great Wes..cept for memory is to close together and not staggard and may present cooling problems between the sticks...plus the board looks like green snot, much prefer blacks, reds and blues.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now