Chipsets, SATA Controllers, And The Test Platforms
Again, in order to measure the performance of our 840 Pro on various platforms, we rounded up a total of seven motherboards, each one sporting a different south bridge or platform controller hub.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
South Bridge
Motherboard
Chipset
Socket
Number and Type of SATA Ports
AMD A75
MSI A75MA-G55
AMD A75
FM1
6 x SATA 6Gb/s
AMD SB750
MSI 790FX-GD70
AMD 790FX
AM3
6 x SATA 3Gb/s
AMD SB950
Asus M5A99X EVO
AMD 990X
AM3
6 x SATA 6Gb/s
Intel ICH10R
MSI Big Bang
Intel X58 Express
LGA 1366
6 x SATA 3Gb/s
Intel P55
Gigabyte P55A-UD7
Intel P55 Express
LGA 1156
6 x SATA 3Gb/s
Intel Z77
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Intel Z77 Express
LGA 1155
2 x SATA 6Gb/s
Intel Z87
Intel DZ87KLT-75K
Intel Z87 Express
LGA 1150
6 x SATA 6Gb/s
In addition to the seven different integrated storage controllers, we also used five third-party SATA controllers, three of which power PCIe add-in cards (Asus U3S6, HighPoint Rocket 620, and HighPoint Rocket 1220), while the other two are soldered onto a motherboard (Asus P8Z77-V Pro und MSI Big Bang).
Swipe to scroll horizontally
SATA Controller
PCIe Slot Card or Motherboard
Motherboard Used
Chipset
Socket
# and Type of SATA Ports
ASMedia ASM1061
Mounted on motherboard
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Intel Z77
LGA 1155
2 x SATA 6Gb/s
Marvell 88SE9123-NAA2
Asus U3S6 (PCIe x4)
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Intel Z77
LGA 1155
2 x SATA 6Gb/s
Marvell 88SE9125-NAA2
HighPoint Rocket 620
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Intel Z77
LGA 1155
2 x SATA 6Gb/s
Marvell 88SE9128-NAA2
Mounted on motherboard
MSI Big Bang
Intel X58
LGA 1366
2 x SATA 6Gb/s
Marvell 88SE9130-NAA2
HighPoint Rocket 1220 (PCIe x1)
Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Intel Z77
LGA 1155
2 x SATA 6Gb/s
Test Configuration and Test Platform
Swipe to scroll horizontally
System Hardware
Hardware
Details
Marvell 88SE9125-NAA2 Highpoint Rocket 620 (PCI x1) 2 x SATA 6Gb/s
2 x 8 GB DDR3-1600 CL10-10-10-27, Corsair Vengance CMZ16GX3M2A1600C10
DDR3 Memory (Dual-Channel)
2 x 8 GB DDR3-1866 CL10-11-10-30, G.Skill RipjawsX F3-14900CL10D-16GBXL
DDR3 Memory (Quad-Channel)
4 x 4 GB Kingston KHX1600C9D3K2/8GX
System SSD
Intel X25-M G1 , 80 GB, Firmware 0701, SATA 3Gb/s
Controller
Intel PCH Z68 SATA 6Gb/s
Power Supply
Seasonic X-760 760 W, SS-760KM Active PFC F3
Benchmarks
Performance Measurements
h2benchw 3.16 PCMark 7 1.0.4
I/O Performance
Iometer 2006.07.27 File server Benchmark Web server Benchmark Database Benchmark Workstation Benchmark Streaming Reads Streaming Writes 4 KB Random Reads 4 KB Random Writes
System Software & Drivers
Driver
Details
Operating System
Windows 8 Pro x64
AMD South Bridges
AMD Chipset Drivers 13.4
Intel Z77 And Z87 Express
Intel RST 12.5.0.1066
All other
Windows 8 integrated driver
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
It's clear that Intel won over AMD in this, because 4k read/write and access time is what we care most about nowadays. It's a shame that AMD went for quantity over quality.
As a side note, when can we see an usb3.0 controller comparison with those new AMD and Intel chipsets?
I was surprised to see intels 3gbs outpace marvels 6bps controllers in many benchmarks. Just goes to show you that not all SATA controllers are created equal.
The one thing the article didn't say, which it should, is that Marvell controllers
are garbage. Notice how often the P55 matches or beats one of the Marvell
6gbit controllers. The PCIe x1 link issue is bad enough, but sometimes even
having a proper connection doesn't help their performance.
Also not mentioned is SSD reliability. The only time I've ever had problems
with an SSD were when it was connected to a Marvell controller (eg. failed
fw update; move the SSD to an Intel port, the update then works ok).
There is one very significant piece of information that is not included in this article. Which particular ports being used on the controller makes a big difference.
Most of the embedded chipsets (or external chipsets) carry a multiplexer between SATA and PCI Express. The CPUs accept PCI Express connections, not SATA, so there is a conversion that must be made, which is done by the SATA chipset. Each lane on PCI Express 2.0 supports approximately 8GB/s, and PCI Express 3.0 supports approximately 15 GB/s.
Here's the problem I have seen in external expansion slots. They connect 4 SATA slots to a single PCI Express 2.0. So potentially, four connected SATA 6 GB/s drives, or 24 GB/s total I/O throughput, is being processed into a single 5 GB/s connection to the CPU. I don't care how good the SATA chipset is at processing and prioritizing I/O data, you are going to have an I/O bottleneck. Even four SATA 3 GB/s drives create a total of 12 GB/s throughput, more than a single PCI Express 2.0 lane can handle. SSDs can approach speeds greater than 3 GB/s, so it is not a theoretical bottleneck, it is a very real limitation.
So going back to the article. At most, I have seen 4 SATA slots connected to a single PCI Express 2.0 lane. I have seen 6 or 8 connected to either 2 discrete lanes or a 2x lane (or 4x lane when talking about SAS), which carries approximately 10 GB/s of total throughput. So depending on the implementation of the embedded chipset on the motherboard, it may be the PCI Express lanes giving you the throughput limitation and not the SATA chipset. Different ports may be connected to different 1x PCI Express lanes or to a 2x lane, giving you either two discrete paths to the CPU, maximizing throughput, or a larger pipeline to the CPU, which is better than a 1x lane but not nearly as good as discrete pathways.
I have an external PCI Express controller with a few drives on my main system, and when transferring files from drives on the internal (motherboard) chipset to drives on the connected card, there is a noticeable throughput difference.
I would like to have seen how CPU speed affects these measurements, if at all. As it is, other than to get off a Marvel controller or upgrade from 3Gb/s to 6Gb/s, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of difference; some, but not enough to write home about (i.e. to suggest an upgrade).
Great article guys. I own an 840 pro myself, and I was wondering why the built-in benchmark numbers weren't as high as what was advertised. Now I know.
Looking at the testbed, I see the Intel X-25M G ONE. How the heck did that achieve above 300+MBps doing anyting at all? It's a SATA2.0 device, which is a 3Gbps interface. Your benchmarks are showing 6Gbps scores.
Sorry guys, I just need to put in some 'constructive criticism'. This article's last paragraph just sounds so stupid and OBVIOUS that it's like reading an old issue of PC Magazine where the authors are a bunch of old fuddy-duddies who say things that are just too obvious. ALL motherboards today come with built-in SATA ports and nobody who has half a brain will buy a separate PCIe SATA controller to run his SSD or mech HDD. NOBODY! Unless that person has (1) run out of southbridge-provided SATA ports, or (2) he has an old board with old SATA 3Gbps ports and thinks a fancy new SATA 6 PCIe card will be a nice upgrade, or (3) he does have less than half a brain and thinks that a separate SATA controller somehow has some secret sauce that's faster than the motherboard SATA ports, or, lastly, (4) he thinks that the ASMedia controller that also came extra with his board is better than what Intel or AMD came up with. Of these four possibilities, 1 and 2 are probably acceptable, 3 and 4 are stupid scenarios.
No, OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY you plug devices into the built-in southbridge-connected SATA ports. Anyone who even thinks about installing his own SSD will AUTOMATICALLY do that, not go out and buy a separate SATA controller!