[moshem]

Hi,

I just bought a tailor made PC Workstation based on the ASUS P4C800 Deluxe Motherboard (875P Chipset), together with a 512MB DDR Dual Channel Kingstone memory, Intel Pentium 4 2.66C (800 Mhz FSB).

The Motherboard has 2 Serial ATA ports originating from the intel chipset and two additional RAID/IDE ports from the promise 378 S-ATA on board controler.

I originaly bought the system with an IBM/Hitachi DeskStar IDE drive 120GB, 7200rpm, 8MB Cache. When I got the replacment Maxtor DiamondStar 9 Plus S-ATA 120GB drive I thought I was in for a performence boots.

When I installed the drive the first thing I noticed is it was very noisy compared to the IBM one, much much louder.

I then reinstalled WinXP SP1 + all updates from Windows update, after attaching the Maxtor drive to one of the Promise S-ATA ports configures as IDE.

I meassured both drives using SISOFT SANDRA and got 29K for the IBM, 31-34K for the maxtor who refused to give a more stable result no matter how many times I ran it.

On the fresh installation I waiting for the system to start and relax and then launched a copy of Internet Explorer, it took 8 seconds before it opened.

I replaced the drives and booted from the IBM drive, launched explorer and it opened up in less than a second.

I remind you the IBM installation is 1-2 weeks old while the Maxtor installation in 24 hours old.

I repeated the "overall system feeling" test with a copy of photoshop 7 and Maya 5. in both cases the Maxtor drive was significantly slower than the IBM drive.

It was my intention to use Serial ATA drives as a means to up system perfomence, in effect the system was feeling much slower and less responsive. don't get me wrong it is still not very very slow, it is just slower than the older technology and allegedly slower IBM drive. The system became less responsive.

I decided to give it another try, I got updated drivers to all componnets on my Motherboard, run Maxtor utilities to disable Acustic Mode, and earased it, partition and format it to NTFS , XP mode, with MaxBlast 3 Floppy edition.

Also, I disabled the Promise controler in the BIOS and attached the Maxtor drive to one of the on board Intel based S-ATA ports. In the BIOS, I set the drive to UDMA6 and 32-bit On.

I then installed a fresh copy of WinXP, this time with no need for special drivers. When the installation was over I was happy again.

XP was fast, the drive was much quieter, and Internet Explorer launched in less then half a second. This was back to performence road. I ran Photoshop 7 and Maya 5 and all launched faster, I expected it to outperforme the IDE IBM drive, but I was happy I got the same performence back.

I ran SISOFT SANDRA and got 38000, WOW! much better.

I started to install my various software application, hooked up a second IDE drive, just to copy my data from (about 30-40GB)

With each installation and with each file copy point, I rebooted and tested how long Explorer takes to launch and SISOFT Sandra test. I was happy.

Finally, I formated teh second IDE drive I was copying from and went to sleep.

In the morning I woke up and it was slow again, I shutdown, removed the second IDE, the system had only the S-ATA drive on it own and two CD-ROM drive on another IDE drive.

Internet Explorer took 8 seconds to launch, SI SOFT SANDRA reported 34K, everything felt sluggish again.

I also defragged my drive, but it did not help.

I have two partitions, 20GB and 100GB, it was formated with NTFS using MaxBlast.

BIOS is set to UDMA6, but windows and SISOFT SANDRA reports it as UDMA5 (Asus says it is a microsoft bug), anyway it said UDMA5 when it was 38K and when it is 31K.

I have no idea what is the reason behind that, maybe my drive is faulty, maybe I am doing something wrong.

bottom line, I bought the more expensvie, faster and modern-technlogy drive and got slower overall perfomence.

please advice.

thanks

 

[vic]

Hi,

I am suffering exactly the same problems , 2 x SATA maxtor 31k sandra benchmarking that is lower than a ' normal ' IDE 7200rpm
with 8mb cache ....
So there is indeed a problem ?

Vic

 

[moshem]

do you have the same motherboard? please provide your entir specs

 

[vic]

Specs are Mobo asus P4c800 de luxe with Pentium 4 3Ghz
2 x 512Mb memory Corsair matched twinx
2 X Maxtor SATA 12O Gb and 1 X Maxtor IDE 60 Gb 2mb cache
all directly connected Promise controller disabled
Hercules 9800 Pro and creative audigy platinium EX
Sony DVD writer and Pioneer DVD rom ; So many ingredients to create problems with this MOBO ....
Bios level at 1010 . I also suffer from time to time spontanous reboots apparently a driver problem ...All drivers are however on the latest level.
The USB problems i suffered a very short term , Apacer integrated card reader are now gone . Hope this info helps
All in all not very happy with this Asus mobo ...

Vic

 

[moshem]

the similarities I find are, both of us use S-ATA and IDE drives on the same motherboard, and both are using HyperThreaded CPU.

but when I removed the IDE drive, it still was performing poorly.

 

[vic]

I have posted also on another board . it seems that the only way to get better results is to connect them on the Promise controller as the Intel will always give lower results; THe person reached easily 52k but on a de luxe E version . Are there other members on the board that get good performance with SATA on intel and
the P4C800 luxe MOBO or the E version ??

 

[moshem]

I have the deluxe version, and I tried it on the Promise controller as well, it did not help at all.

I am now getting 29K.

BTW, 52K is most likely achievable only in a RAID configuration, i am using 1 drive.

I got a letter from ASUS, looks like bull**** cut and paste stuff, but I'll paste it here for everyone to try, if it helps anyone, please post it here :




[8/21/2003 2:02:00 PM - nick23]
Please get the latest RAID driver from our site.

Also, please start by clearing the system c-mos memory following the procedure in your manual. Make sure the power AND the battery on the motherboard is removed before shorting the CLR RTC solder points or jumper pins.
You may need to refer to the "Interrupt Request Table" in your manual and arrange your PCI add-in cards so they do not cause interrupt conflicts. Some devices just do not get along with each other. You may also remove your PCI cards to see if this corrects the problem. If it does, add the cards back one by one to see which card is causing the problem. Anytime you add, move, or remove a PCI card, please enter BIOS setup and set the option "Reset Configuration Data" to "Yes" if your BIOS has this option. This will force the BIOS to reassign resources to your PnP devices.
Next, enter Bios Setup and load setup defaults.
Under Boot, if needed, please set the BOOT order. Then set "Reset Configuration Data" To "YES". Any other changes you need to make for your specific system configuration please do so at this time.
Next, exit "Saving Changes" and this should correct the issue.
Also for Windows 9X or ME, they have some issues with CPU speeds greater than 2.1 GHz (see MS Q312108) or memory above 512 MB total system memory (see MS Q253912). These O.S. cannot cache the memory properly. If your CPU is greater than 2.1 GHz, you will need to contact Microsoft Product Support Services to obtain a patch to correct this issue.
Here are some links for common memory related problems:
Err Msg: "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q253912
Err Msg: Windows Protection Error in NDIS with a CPU That Is Faster Than 2.1 GHz
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q312108
Err Msg: While Initializing Device NTKERN: Windows Protection...
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q192397
Err Msg: Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q184447
Computer May Reboot Continuously with More Than 1.5 GB of RAM
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q304943
Computer Speed and Performance May Decrease
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q259161
Err Msg: Not Enough Extended Memory Available to Run Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q311367
Troubleshooting Stop 0x24 or NTFS_FILE_SYSTEM Error Messages
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q228888


Make sure you have a FRESH install of your OS on THIS motherboard and that the drive was partitioned and formatted on this motherboard. Make sure that you install the most recent drivers in the following order:
1) Chipset/Motherboard drivers (Example, VIA 4 in 1's for VIA chipsets, Intel INF and Application Accelerator for Intel chipsets, Etc.) Do this BEFORE loading any other driver!
2) Latest version of Direct X.
3) Latest Video Card drivers.
4) SCSI/ATA drivers
5) Lan/NIC drivers
6) Modem drivers, then any other drivers
7) Finally, install sound card drivers last.

Also, please check to make sure your power supply can supply enough power to your system.
If the CPU is below 700 MHz, the power supply we suggest as follows:
300 Watts with +5 Volt @ 25 amps, +12 Volt @ 10 amps, and +3.3 Volt @ 14 amps.
If the CPU speed is above 700MHz, the power supply we suggest as follows:
350 Watt with +5V @ 30 amps, +12V @ 12 amps, and +3.3V @ 22 amps.
For Dual Intel MB, Min. P.S. should be:
350 Watt with +5V @ 35 amps, +12V @ 15 amps, and +3.3V @ 22 amps.
For Dual AMD MB, Min. P.S. should be:
400 Watt with +5V @ 38 amps, +12V @ 15 amps, and +3.3V @ 20 amps.
Please note that these are only suggestions and the actual size of the power supply may be higher than we suggest. Also, depending on the config of your system, you may need more power than listed above. For example, running multiple hard drives, CR-Rom drives or other accessories may increase the power requirements of your system!

If that still doesn't work, then please check that the MB is not picking up EMI interference or improperly grounding against the case. Please remove the MB from the case and set it up DIRECTLY on the cardboard box it came in or some other non-static, non-conductive surface like a telephone book. Connect up everything to the MB and see if the problem persists. If this corrects the problem, you will need to electrically isolate the MB from the case. You will need to use electrical tape over the brass stand-offs that support the MB to the case and use the red paper washers between the screw heads and the MB. The red paper washers should have came with your case hardware or they can be purchased at Radio Shack or a computer store. Also double check that a motherboard standoff is NOT placed in a spot where the motherboard is not designed to be grounded, as some cases will have different standoff locations to accommodate different styled of motherboards. Also check that there are no other metal objects that could contact the motherboard or any other electrical device attached to the system, such as a metal burr, loose screw, metal rod, or any other object that could cause a short.

 

[JesseBearden]

I'm right there with you guys.

When I got my P4C800 and 2.8 Ghz Processor, I also bought 2 10,000 RPM SATA Western Digital Raptor drives. They're supposed to be the fastest non SCSI drive on the market.

Imagine my surprise when they performed significantly slower on most benchmarks compared to my year old 120 GB 7200 RPM. I even had them set up on a RAID.

I contacted ASUS, Western Digital, and even got ahold of the guys at promise. Western Digital was helpful, but we basically figured it wasn't the drives since I had two, and tried them in a RAID, and as single drives. Promise told me that they couldn't help me and I needed to talk to ASUS. ASUS support was worthless.

In the end, I just took my SATA drives back. I was considering buying a boxed version of the Raptor as it comes with a PCI SATA controller, but I don't really want to go through the headache.

Jesse

 

[George Safford]

Better than me!

I have a Western Digital 40 gig that runs at 28K and my SATA drive is running at 27K in Sandra Pro 2003. Pretty pathedic not to mention a waste of money buying the SATA drive, which is also Western Digital 120 gig.

 

[stim141]

Tried both the Intel and Promise, got better numbers off the Promise initially. Did a run on a clean installation and got consistent numbers in the 39K range. Once additional software was added to the drive however the numbers dropped considerably. Ran defrag, cleanup, etc and still the same - performance dropped to 29K. Think its the way Sandra does its performance calculations - if the drive is totally clean - no gaps in data the numbers should be in the initial install range, but when you add software and start to fill the drive - I also have the Maxtor 120 Sata 8mb, and the data is not contiguous numbers will decrease significantly. Check the way the data was written on the drive. Have Windows XP SP1 Pro, Office, Streets and Trips, Service Packs, and basically ScanSoft Paperport installed with some other minor programs. Drive is contiguous and the numbers were in the 35K range until Streets and Trips (big blocks) and Paperport - which installed at middle of drive - which won't compress toward the front leaving a big gap in empty space which most likely is causing the decrease in performance (numbers anyway). Check how your data is written and report back. Am curious if my theory is correct. I think the problem is with Sandra and installed programs not necessarilly with the drive/interface.

 

[clintfan]

On the other hand, what good is a computer without installed programs? The test should happen under realistic, normal conditions, not some ideal empty-drive situation that will only happen once during the PC's life (but not some seriously over-fragged situation either). Just my opinion,

-clintfan

 

[stim141]

Exactly, but who knows what Sandrasoft's reference numbers are based on? My guess is its a clean install without any other MS software or third party software.

 

[clintfan]

Sounds like we are in agreement. Well if that's the standard yardstick, then I guess one has to measure it that way in order to draw meaningful comparisons. But they should not then also expect those ideal, cleanroom numbers to reflect actual usage under day-to-day application conditions later on.

IMO the best approach is make sure you have a solidly thought-out data-flow design plan within your box, a plan you can rely on, and go from there. But if your goal is gaming, then data-flow may be of less importance than raw kickin' CPU power, which is what I sort of hear this time.

(I'm sort of out of my element here with Sandra, but couldn't help commenting before.)

-clintfan

 

[Legendus]

SATA & the need for speed

Has anyone gotten to the bottom of this problem yet?


:compute:

 

[texacobacon]

Promise Controller on PCI Bus?

I could easily be getting this wrong, as I'm pretty new to tinkering with this stuff, but in the course of my research for building my PC I've run into a lot of discussion on the Promise controller.

Here's what I believe to be the case (corrections encouraged): on the P4C800 boards, RAID was only possible from the Promise controller, which shares the PCI bus and therefore can experience some constraints on bandwidth when other PCI cards are operating (i.e. graphics card). Protests from customers led ASUS to release the P4C800-E, which allowed for a RAID set up on ICH5R, allowing greater maximum bandwidth (150 Mbps versus 133 on the PCI bus) and no conflict with other PCI uses.

My suspicion is that conflicts with other PCI uses are a common cause of mediocre performance from the Promise RAID configurations.

 

[SPEEDO]

This Thread is almost a year old, Fellas

 

[Legendus]

better with age

And your point would be?

 

[SPEEDO]

My point would be if your having the same proiblem start your own thread.