AN8 Fatlaity NForce4 Ultra

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Can anyone throw any light on this?

AMD643500+
AN8 Fatality (NF4 Ultra)
2 x DimondMax 9Plus (Parallel ATA133 with ABIT SATA II converters, channel 1
& 2)
1x Hitachi 160GB SATA II (Channel 3)

Problem -

Windows does not recognise the Hitachi SATA II drive as a SATA II device,
although it does recognise the NCQ (automatically selects SATA 150), also
there is no SATA II interface type option if you try to manually select in
the 'System', device manager properties for that particular drive channel
(SATA II device is on a seperate channel to all other devices).

Does the NF4 Ultra chipset support SATA II (300G) yet ??????

or is there a special driver you need to download?


Dazzer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Solved !

Dam drive has not even been enabled for SATA II by the manufacturer !

Anyone using a Hitachi SATA II drive should download their utilities
software and enable SATA 3.0G manually

240 M/b bust speed must be an improvement!


Dazzer


"Dazzer" <dayd01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SBuGe.19181$Hd4.17881@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Can anyone throw any light on this?
>
> AMD643500+
> AN8 Fatality (NF4 Ultra)
> 2 x DimondMax 9Plus (Parallel ATA133 with ABIT SATA II converters, channel
> 1 & 2)
> 1x Hitachi 160GB SATA II (Channel 3)
>
> Problem -
>
> Windows does not recognise the Hitachi SATA II drive as a SATA II device,
> although it does recognise the NCQ (automatically selects SATA 150), also
> there is no SATA II interface type option if you try to manually select in
> the 'System', device manager properties for that particular drive channel
> (SATA II device is on a seperate channel to all other devices).
>
> Does the NF4 Ultra chipset support SATA II (300G) yet ??????
>
> or is there a special driver you need to download?
>
>
> Dazzer
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Dazzer" <dayd01@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> Dam drive has not even been enabled for SATA II by the manufacturer !

Think you'll find most of the HD manufacturers are doing that atm.

> 240 M/b bust speed must be an improvement!

Only for benchmark wankers. Real-world performance is next to
indistinguishable. The command queuing makes a bit of difference, especially
in multi-task or server applications, but the ever-increasing burst (i.e.
interface) speed has always been largely a case of marketing bull rather
than real performance improvements.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

Yep, I appreciate sustained transfer rates have not improved a great deal
50-60 M/B's only but as you say the NCQ and burst speeds do make a little
noticeable difference.

HDD unfortunately have not moved forward as with offer parts, shame.

Dazzer

"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42ec4bfc$0$13704$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "Dazzer" <dayd01@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>> Dam drive has not even been enabled for SATA II by the manufacturer !
>
> Think you'll find most of the HD manufacturers are doing that atm.
>
>> 240 M/b bust speed must be an improvement!
>
> Only for benchmark wankers. Real-world performance is next to
> indistinguishable. The command queuing makes a bit of difference,
> especially in multi-task or server applications, but the ever-increasing
> burst (i.e. interface) speed has always been largely a case of marketing
> bull rather than real performance improvements.
> --
>
>
> Richard Hopkins
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
> (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>
> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit (More info?)

"Dazzer" <dayd01@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
> Yep, I appreciate sustained transfer rates have not improved a great
> deal 50-60 M/B's only but as you say the NCQ and burst speeds do
> make a little noticeable difference.

NCQ does under certain usage circumstances, but the only time you'll see the
interface speed doing anything is on synthetic benchmarks that measure (or
make heavy use of) burst speed.

> HDD unfortunately have not moved forward as with offer parts, shame.

That's not really fair. Hard disk technology *has* progressed hugely over
the last few years, just look at the huge increases in storage density and
ultimage disk capacities. If linear read/write rates haven't improved at the
same rate as processor/memory I/O has, that's simply a reflection of the
limitations of rotating magnetic discs as a data storage medium. Ultimately
there are plenty of non-volatile data storage technologies around that are
orders of magnitude faster than hard disks, but their cost-per-megabyte is
currently many times that of hard disks, which is why they're not available
as the main storage on domestic PC's right now.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com