6Gbps SATA Performance: AMD 890GX vs. Intel X58/P55
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 25, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
Random Read Performance is Also Affected
It’s not all about peak bandwidth either. Remember that bandwidth and latency are related, so it’s not all too surprising that the setups that delivered the least amount of bandwidth, also hurt small file read speed.
The target here is around 80MB/s. That’s what Intel’s X58 can do off one of its native 3Gbps SATA ports. Let’s see how everything else fares:
At 80MB/s the Crucial RealSSD C300 is pushing roughly 20,000 IOPS in this test. The highest random read speed of any MLC SSD we’ve ever tested in fact. With the 890GX the C300 can only manage 64.3MB/s.
Naturally I shared my data with AMD before publishing, including my Iometer test scripts. Running on its internal 890GX test platform, AMD was able to achieve a 4KB random read speed of 102.6MB/s in this test - faster than anything I’d ever tested. Unfortunately that appears to be using AMD’s own internal reference board and not one of the publicly available 890GX platforms. The good news is that if AMD’s numbers are accurate, there is hope for 890GX’s SATA performance. It’s just a matter of getting the 3rd party boards up to speed (AMD has since shared some more results with me that show performance with some beta BIOSes on 3rd party boards improving even more).
Using the Marvell 6Gbps controller in any PCIe 2.0 slot (or off a PCIe 2.0 interface as is the case with Gigabyte’s X58), or in one of ASUS’ 6Gbps ports behind the PLX switch, yields peak performance more or less.
Any of the PCIe 1.0 slots however saw a drop from ~80MB/s to ~65MB/s. The exception being Intel’s odd x4 slot that is a PCIe 1.0 slot, but branches off the X58 IOH and thus appears to offer lower latency than PCIe 1.0 slots dangling off the ICH.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
View All Comments
Ralos - Saturday, March 27, 2010 - link
Hi Anand,Using Firefox 3.6.2 with the security options activated, your site appears blocked for security reason. Untrustworthy. www.anandtech.com/storage specifically.
Thought you'd like to be informed of this misunderstanding.
StormyParis - Saturday, March 27, 2010 - link
what is the CPU usage ?psychobriggsy - Friday, March 26, 2010 - link
It would have been nice to see the Marvell speeds when attached by PCIe on the AMD board. Seems like an obvious thing to include to be honest.Impressive write speeds for the AMD controller, which gives a lot of hope that they can improve the read speeds, as they indicate they can with their in-house test bed.
AMD should bulk up their test bed with retail motherboards as well, so that they don't just test in ideal circumstances.
assassin37 - Friday, March 26, 2010 - link
Anand,Im torn,
I have the Gigabyte X58-ud3r system with I7, I also have the Gigabyte AMD 890GPA-UD3H with Phenom 965. Lastly I have a 256 crucial C300 and 2 vertex 120's,I have to return 1(mobo-cpu) setup to new egg soon, what would you do, sorry I know this is not a comment
TrackSmart - Friday, March 26, 2010 - link
I'm not Anand, so I can't say what he would do. But honestly, it's a matter of your personal preference and priorities.I like to support competition, so I put together an AMD Phenom II X4 system instead of an Intel Core i5 750 system. I chose AMD because they offered me similar performance per dollar (they were slightly cheaper but had slightly lower performance), plus I felt good about supporting much-needed competition in the CPU market.
What are YOUR priorities? Maximum performance? Supporting competition in the CPU/GPU market? Best performance per dollar? Most energy efficient?
That should be what makes your decision. The hardware you listed will all be blazingly fast, whatever you decide. The Intel platform offers potentially higher performance, but probably at slightly higher cost. Your choice. Same for the SSDs.
[sorry if that wasn't a "you should do this" kind of answer.]
wiak - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
what about Highpoint Marvell 6Gbps PCIe 2.0 card on AMD 7-Series chipset?for me that has no USB3 or SATA 6Gbps on my AMD 790FX motherboard
it will make this article fully complete, its the only thing thats missing! :)
georgekn3mp - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
About the two different Marvell controllers 88SE9123 and the 88SE9128...the older 9123 does NOT support RAID and the newer 9128 DOES natively support RAID 0, 1 and 5.Unfortunately on my Asus P6X58D, the controller is the older 9123 so the only way I could RAID a SATA-III SSD (or even mechanical) drive is using "Windows" Raid, not firmware on the controller. Whether it hurts performance though is harder to say since I can't test it yet ;).
I have been planning on the 256GB RealSSD for a couple of months now and am happy they started shipping...as one of the main reasons I had picked the Asus board was the native USB3 and SATA-III support. Unfortunately it does not support the RAID function but at almost 750 a drive I was not going to RAID for a while anyway....I AM happy I went with X58 for sure!
It seems the newer Gigabyte boards UD4 or higher do have the newer controller and are better for RAID SSD expecially now that it is hardware supported...the open question no one has been able to answer is if the Marvell 88SE9128 will pass TRIM commands to a RAID SSD set. So far Gigabyte boards are the only ones with that controller it appears...
Intel just updated their ICH10R chipset firmware to pass TRIM to SSDs in RAID...hopefully Marvell does too.
Since the disk speed is the bottleneck on my new computer, $750 is worth it just to prompt me to Crossfire my 5850 because the bottleneck shifted to graphics....especially with i7-920 OC to 4Ghz ;)
deviationer - Friday, March 26, 2010 - link
So the p6x58d does have the PLX chip?Mark McGann - Monday, May 10, 2010 - link
The p6x58D premium apparently does not according to this linkhttp://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_c...
Don't know about the newer p6x58D-E
KaarlisK - Thursday, March 25, 2010 - link
Software RAID is definitely no slouch:http://kmwoley.com/blog/?p=429">http://kmwoley.com/blog/?p=429
But this comparison used a very old ICH.