ICH10 vs. SB750 vs. nForce Linux performance comparison

[Pepazdepa]

According to the many internet reviews, AMD SB600/700/710/750 chipsets have problems with AHCI and RAID performance. These test are usually made on Windows, in addition RAID test are using crippled firmware RAID integrated into motherboards bios.

In Linux, the situation is different. We dont use vendor AHCI drivers and we use mdraid, wich is superior over motherboard fakeraid. So, my question is:

What is the situation with AHCI and mdraid on AMD southbridges in Linux? Is the situation so bad, that nVIdia nForce would be far better solution for AMD platform?

Or nVidia nForce os not much better anyway, and it is better to choice Intel platform for best AHCI and mdraid performance?

I have read some post about this topic here on forum, and I searched PTS Global for some results, but this database is not very suitable for searching and comparing

[deanjo]

In Linux, the situation is different. We dont use vendor AHCI drivers and we use mdraid, wich is superior over motherboard fakeraid.

Unless you want to dualboot and have access to the raid array. Then you use dmraid.

[Redeeman]

Unless you want to dualboot and have access to the raid array. Then you use dmraid.
only if you want to dualboot with an inferior OS

[deanjo]

only if you want to dualboot with an inferior OS

Sorry but that "inferior OS" often has superior tools to accomplish a task. Sad but true.

[Redeeman]

haha yeah... right....

[deanjo]

haha yeah... right....

Multimedia content creation, Cad/Cam, 3D modeling / animation, financial applications, plus a whole crapload of specialized software for a certain task.

[deanjo]

and of course gaming.

[monkeynut]

and of course gaming.

Deanjo, don't feed the troll. ;)

[Pepazdepa]

As I can see, my basic question remained unanswered. Especially nForce vs. AMD chipset with AHCI performance.

[deanjo]

As I can see, my basic question remained unanswered. Especially nForce vs. AMD chipset with AHCI performance.

OK here is your short summary of how the AHCI performance is with the chipsets.

Intel chipsets > Nvidia > AMD at least until AMD's new southbridges come out then that might finally change.

[lordmozilla]

but really whats the point of AHCI motherboard raid in windows?

raid 0 - windows breaks on its own does it really need help?
raid 1 - window is slow, does it need to be made slower?

I realise my comment is not helpful, but basically I would always advice against using AHCI mobo raid in linux. If you need to dual boot then decide wether windows really needs to be raided, or prepare for some weird problems

[deanjo]

but really whats the point of AHCI motherboard raid in windows?

raid 0 - windows breaks on its own does it really need help?
raid 1 - window is slow, does it need to be made slower?

I realise my comment is not helpful, but basically I would always advice against using AHCI mobo raid in linux. If you need to dual boot then decide wether windows really needs to be raided, or prepare for some weird problems

Well raid 0 is risky no matter what type. Raid 1 has extremely little to no performance hit utilizing AHCI raid. Having said all that, running dualboot with ahci raid for years and across many systems I have yet to see any "wonkyness", even rebuilding of a raid 5 after a drive failure with a dualboot system worked fine.

[satan0rx]

So, I want to answer your question partly.

I have some MSI Mainboard w/ ATI SB600 SB ( predecessor of SB7xx).
While AHCI Performance is somewhat OKish, USB _REALLY_ SUCKS!
(not only performance wise, but also it's BROKEN: USB11 webcam won't work on USB20 hub, will sometimes lock up completely, etc.)

I'd strongly advise to get Nvidia.

[satan0rx]

On my NB, Intel chipset, my USB disk does:

note PLvsZOD # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb1

/dev/sdb1:
Timing cached reads: 788 MB in 2.00 seconds = 394.13 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 84 MB in 3.05 seconds = 27.57 MB/sec

On my desktop box, AMD SB600:

luzifer tom # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 6804 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3402.68 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 84 MB in 3.02 seconds = 27.82 MB/sec

Ok, the limiting factor is probably the usb enclosure ;)

This is the output for the harddisk of the desktop:
luzifer tom # hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 7160 MB in 2.00 seconds = 3581.56 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 324 MB in 3.01 seconds = 107.75 MB/sec

It's some seagate HDD btw.

[Muad'Dib]

Hello,

After a few tests I can't recommand AMD.

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19042