Given a lack of chipset vendors integrating USB 3.0 support into their core logic (with the exception of AMD's Socket FM1-focused A75), motherboard manufacturers are forced to lean hard on third-party solutions. We take a few for a test drive.
|Processor||AMD A8-3800 (Llano) 2.4 GHz (24 * 100 MHz) CPU, 600 MHz GPU (400 Shaders), Quad-core, Socket FM1, 4 MB L2 Cache, Power-savings enabled|
|Motherboard||Asus F1A75-V Pro, BIOS v1102|
Gigabyte A75-UD4H, BIOS vF6
|Memory||Kingston Hyper-X 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1333 @ DDR3-1333, 1.5 V|
|System Drive ||OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB SATA 6Gb/s, Firmware: 2.06|
|Graphics||Palit GeForce GTX 460 1 GB|
|Power Supply||Seasonic 760 W, 80 PLUS|
|System Software and Drivers|
|Operating System||Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit|
|DirectX ||DirectX 11|
|Driver||Graphics: Nvidia 275.33 |
Since Kingston’s HyperX Max 3.0 got high marks in our previous USB 3.0 roundup, we’re using four of them to simultaneously tax the bandwidth of each controller as much as possible (obviously we can only connect up to two drives to each controller, so the four SSDs have to be deployed across a combination of ports to tax the various controllers). This should provide a worst-case scenario, since solid-state-based USB 3.0 storage solutions deliver much more potential throughput than the conventional external drives out there.
The USB 2.0 and 3.0 standards do not include support for native command queuing, so we’re only testing at a queue depth of one.
- Should You Care About Your Motherboard's USB 3.0 Controller?
- The Controller Lineup
- Is There A Difference Between USB 3.0 Configurations?
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Random Read And Writes
- Benchmark Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
- What Does This Mean In The Real-World?
- Getting Good Speed From USB 3.0