Yet another thread on raptor hds

[phaelinx]

I recently got a 74g raptor..After installing windows on it..which was a MAJOR BITCH to begin with..because I had to hookup my old floppy drive..copied the sata controller drivers to it then went to load the bootable windows cd..some how my disk was blank..so I had to try another floppy drive and disk as now none of my disks worked in my old floppy drive..anyways..got windows installed..chipset drivers, all sata drivers, dx9c, video card drivers, and then all updates to windows minus sp2(not installed YET) and when i go and benchmark my raptor..its performing at like 120mb/s, slower than a ata133 7200rpm hd????

about 2 bars above I can see the one that says Serial ata 10k hd with 150mb/s, why isnt my drive performing up there?!

granted its onboard serial ata, and its the gigabyte 7n400 pro2 rev2 with the most current updated bios..does this boards ide/serial ata ports just suck ass? cause i noticed with ide3 and ide4, having a hd in each setup as a raid0, the raid0 performed slower than a single drive did..and people were saying the GigaRaid controller on this mb sucks..is it the same way with the Serial ata port?!?!

 

[defakto]

um, that's 120 MB/s not mb, BIG difference, and that's not bad, no other ide harddrive will come close to that. My raptors at home (non-raid) hit bursts of 80MB/s and average 66MB/s for transfer rates. NO 7200 rpm drive will match that on it's own. Period. ALSO 150MB/s is the max speed the interface can hit per channel, like ata133 can only hit MAX per channel 133MB/s, you will not see a drive that maxes it out for quite some time yet.

 

[[H]Rabbit]

um, that's 120 MB/s not mb, BIG difference, and that's not bad, no other ide harddrive will come close to that. My raptors at home (non-raid) hit bursts of 80MB/s and average 66MB/s for transfer rates. NO 7200 rpm drive will match that on it's own. Period. ALSO 150MB/s is the max speed the interface can hit per channel, like ata133 can only hit MAX per channel 133MB/s, you will not see a drive that maxes it out for quite some time yet.

defakto wins! and by that I mean he's right on all counts.

 

[phaelinx]

yeah i know..megabit not byte..just was wondering if the drive was performing onpar or if that was slow

 

[djnes]

After installing windows on it..which was a MAJOR BITCH to begin with..because I had to hookup my old floppy drive..copied the sata controller drivers to it then went to load the bootable windows cd..some how my disk was blank..so I had to try another floppy drive and disk as now none of my disks worked in my old floppy drive..

I'm a little confused why more people aren't complaining about this. I still say the motherboard chipsets available for AMD procs aren't as good as the ones Intel makes for it's processors. I could list many reasons, but look at this example. Your not running the drive in a RAID array, so you shouldn't need extra drivers. That's how it is on the Intel side. Those floppy drivers aren't needed unless your enabling the RAID functionality. On an Intel chipset board (865, 875, etc), you just install Windows as normal...no hitting F6, no searching for drivers, etc.

Also, your drive is performing fine. don't believe the marketing crap and hype.

 

[phaelinx]

I think because amd has their serial ata ports recogonized as a SCSI port..I couldnt get the raptor to boot in any squence other than selecting SCSI in the bios for bootup drives..so 2 floppy drives and about 4 cables is what it cost me to get windows on this drive, as one of my old drives was bad and 3 of my old cables were bad

 

[djnes]

I think because amd has their serial ata ports recogonized as a SCSI port..I couldnt get the raptor to boot in any squence other than selecting SCSI in the bios for bootup drives..so 2 floppy drives and about 4 cables is what it cost me to get windows on this drive, as one of my old drives was bad and 3 of my old cables were bad

All SATA ports are considered SCSI when they have the RAID functionality enabled. If not, it's considered an IDE port in XP (at least this is how the Intel side does it).

 

[phaelinx]

well on my board..in my bios i can set both my controllers as either RAID or BASE, I have them set as base and inside of windows they are labelled as a SCSI drive under the Disk Drive tier in device manager..both my 120gig hd thats on my ITE chip is labelled SCSI as well as the new raptor i have on my serial ata port, also labelled as SCSI. Ill take a screenshot when i get home later tonight..

 

[olaf2821]

I'm a little confused why more people aren't complaining about this. I still say the motherboard chipsets available for AMD procs aren't as good as the ones Intel makes for it's processors. I could list many reasons, but look at this example. Your not running the drive in a RAID array, so you shouldn't need extra drivers. That's how it is on the Intel side. Those floppy drivers aren't needed unless your enabling the RAID functionality. On an Intel chipset board (865, 875, etc), you just install Windows as normal...no hitting F6, no searching for drivers, etc.

Also, your drive is performing fine. don't believe the marketing crap and hype.

I think the fault must also fall on MS for not allowing you to load drivers on a CD, or easily slipstream them, and for motherboard makers for not allowing you to use USB thumdrives as a floppy. And one note, the integrated sata on the nForce3 boards (the nVidia ones) do atapi emulation and do not require a driver disk for non-RAID support, just like the Intel ones.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

I'm a little confused why more people aren't complaining about this. I still say the motherboard chipsets available for AMD procs aren't as good as the ones Intel makes for it's processors. I could list many reasons, but look at this example. Your not running the drive in a RAID array, so you shouldn't need extra drivers. That's how it is on the Intel side. Those floppy drivers aren't needed unless your enabling the RAID functionality. On an Intel chipset board (865, 875, etc), you just install Windows as normal...no hitting F6, no searching for drivers, etc.

Also, your drive is performing fine. don't believe the marketing crap and hype.

It has nothing to do with better chipset. The reason we need additional drivers is due to old chipset. The Intel chipsets have native sata. At the time they were designed and with Intel being one of the main pushers of new tech, the chipset was designed with native sata. Amd seems to aproach their chipsets differently as in if it aint broke dont fix it. SO Sata wasn't mainstream, would cost tons more to redo chipset for native sata and was not cost effective to performance at the time. Since it is non native it is pretty much the same as having a regular mobo with a pci SATA card. So using your logic i shouldnt have to install drivers for my audigy soundcard but i do.

You see the same thing coming with PCI Express. Intel already has mobos out with it. Amd doesnt. Its not because intel chipsets are better its just cost effective not to have it right now. With PCI express devices coming more readily available you will see amd move towards that in its chipsets. Right now its not a major concern.