Disk Controller Performance

With the variety of disk drive benchmarks available, we needed a means of comparing the true performance of the wide selection of controllers. The logical choice was Anand's storage benchmark first described in Q2 2004 Desktop Hard Drive Comparison: WD Raptor vs. the World. To refresh your memory, the iPeak test was designed to measure "pure" hard disk performance, and in this case, we kept the hard drive as consistent as possible while varying the hard drive controller. The idea is to measure the performance of a hard drive controller with a consistent hard drive.

We played back Anand's raw files that recorded I/O operations when running a real world benchmark - the entire Winstone 2004 suite. Intel's iPEAK utility was then used to play back the trace file of all IO operations that took place during a single run of Business Winstone 2004 and MCC Winstone 2004. To try to isolate performance difference to the controllers that we were testing, we used the Maxtor MaXLine III 7L300S0 300GB 7200 RPM SATA drive in all tests. The drive was formatted before each test run and a composite average of 5 tests on each controller interface was tabulated in order to ensure consistency in the benchmark.

iPeak gives a mean service time in milliseconds; in other words, the average time that each drive took to fulfill each IO operation. In order to make the data more understandable, we report the scores as an average number of IO operations per second so that higher scores translate into better performance. 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. However, the scores are useful for comparing "pure" performance of the storage controllers in this case.

iPeak Business Winstone Hard Disk I/O

iPeak Multimedia Content Creation Hard Disk I/O

The performance patterns hold steady across both Multimedia Content IO and Business IO, with the on-board NVIDIA nForce4 SATA 2 still providing the fastest IO, followed closely by the Intel ICH7R and Silicon Image 3132 SATA 2 controllers.

High Resolution Gaming Performance Firewire and USB Performance
Comments Locked

26 Comments

View All Comments

  • Houdani - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    The other reviewers here at Anandtech offer their own style, thereby providing the "mix it up" factor. I personally don't think you need to adjust your style, as I happen to like the cultural infusion supplied by your literary quotes.
  • Furen - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    Fair enough, I was just giving my personal opinion on the matter.
  • bersl2 - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    What's wrong with being exposed to what the author believes to be wisdom? Surely you don't read these articles simply for the technical specifications; otherwise, you would read the spec sheet. Why, then, do you object to the author trying to relate an idea to you?
  • Furen - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    I read the articles for their technical merits. Spec sheets do not show how the different components interact with one another nor can they show performance, stability, etc; and, most importantly of all, they're made by the manufacturer, who is hardly to be considered an unbiased source. The problem with throwing a strong idea in front of the reader before giving him article is that this idea becomes the filter through which the rest of the article is viewed. This is, of course, very effective if you are trying to persuade the user to reach the same conclusions as you, but it skews the reader's ability to analize the purely technical merits of the products.
  • mbhame - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    What makes you so sure Conroe is the last P4? ;)
    quote:

    The Pentium 4 will never die!
    Long Live the Pentium 4!!!
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    Conroe isn't a P4. It's the next generation architecture that Intel has not yet named - also referred to as the NGATIHNYN. :p

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now