USB 3.0 Backup

Our backup testing takes a typical set of user files – specifically just under 8000 files across 4 GB, some large files but mostly small.  For USB 3.0 testing, these files are copied from a 4 GB RAMDisk onto an OCZ Vertex3 which is connected via a SATA 6 Gbps to USB 3.0 device.  We use all the USB 3.0 protocols available - the UASP protocol that the ASMedia controller on our test bed affords as well as the chipset driven Intel USB 3.0 under ASUS' Turbo mode.  The copy test is conducted using DiskBench, a copying tool with accurate copy timing.

USB 3.0 Copy Test, ASMedia + UASP

USB 3.0 Copy Test, ASMedia

USB 3.0 Copy Test, Intel + Turbo

USB 3.0 Copy Test, Intel Chipset

Across the result range, no matter which protocol is used, our copy testing shows up to a 7% decrease in copy times over the USB 3.0 protocol moving from DDR3-1333 to DDR3-2133.  In some cases, such as using Intel Turbo mode, the timing levels out around DDR3-1866, but in the case of UASP, the DDR3-2133 C9 kit provides the best result.  Interesting to note that in the case of UASP, having a smaller CL value is more important than having a larger speed value.

Thunderbolt Backup

Similar to our USB 3.0 Backup test, Thunderbolt testing carries the same files directly through to our LittleBig Disk which contains two 120 GB Intel SSDs in RAID-0.  The copy test is conducted using DiskBench, a copying tool with accurate copy timing.

Thunderbolt Copy Test

Thunderbolt tests are never as consistent as USB timing – the results shown are the average of the best three obtained.  Typically the best results come after leaving the Thunderbolt device for 30 seconds or longer after the last copy test as the TB device does an amount of post processing after the data has officially been sent.  Nevertheless, a gradual decrease in copy times is exhibited from DDR3-1333 to DDR3-2400.

Gaming Tests: Portal 2, Batman AA, Overall IGP Conversion, Compression and Computation


View All Comments

  • crackedwiseman - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    OK, just one question: why in the hell are the IGP memory tests done on an i7? The results would be much more meaningful if the tests were on an AMD A10 or similar - it has a beefier IGP, and thus would be more bandwidth-bound. Reply
  • creed3020 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    100% Agree. Doing these tests against a Trinity APU would have been much more interesting from a iGPU point of view. It it well known that AMD APUs benefit from increased memory bandwidth, AT has yet to test Trinity for this yet they did it for Llano. Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    It makes sense to test; HD 4000 is far superior to HD 3000 and it is worth knowing if that extra power is bandwidth limited. Generally, it is a little, though nowhere near as much as AMD's equivalents are. Reply
  • JonnyDough - Monday, October 22, 2012 - link

    Not to mention, it's surprising to me that AMD wasn't mentioned as a company trying to match memory to motherboard. AMD started making their own memory modules, an interesting fact I think. Reply
  • hp79 - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    Maybe because more people use intel? I agree that it would have stood out more if it was AMD's IGP, but doing the test on intel IGP is also okay and gives an idea of what to expect. I think the article is fine. Besides, do people really play games with IGP? If I am playing demanding games, I want the frame rates to be minimum 60 fps. That's why I use a dedicated graphics card. This might change when AMD's IGP gets even more powerful, but for now I think it's still not there yet. Reply
  • zcat - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    > Besides, do people really play games with IGP?

    Some of us do. My miniitx i7 is primarily for work & everyday use, but its HD4000 is fast enough for Portal 2 and Diablo 3 to be very playable @ 1920x1080p with AA off.

    However, I know the limits of IGP, and intend on upgrading to an overclocked GeForce GTX 650 Ti very soon in order to play some more demanding games this winter.
  • - Monday, October 22, 2012 - link

    you may want to reconsider your choice of video "upgrade"
    nvidia's 2nd number is more significant than the first as far as overall gaming graphics power goes... You'd do better going for a 560 TI than a 650 for approx the same cost
  • Dirk Broer - Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - link

    You should first look at what chip actually powers the card -and it's capabilities- before staring yourself blind on the last two digits. Besides that, a GTX 560 Ti is more expensive than a GTX 650. Reply
  • ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    "Besides, do people really play games with IGP?"

    They're definitely more likely to play games on a more powerful IGP like AMD's. I thought the whole point of AMD's Fusion lineup was that you could do light gaming on the IGP itself.
  • Boogaloo - Thursday, October 18, 2012 - link

    There are already plenty of benchmarks out there for memory scaling on AMD's APUs. This is the first time I've seen an in-depth look at how memory speed affects Intel's IGP performance. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now