3d Benchmarking - Page 4

centrifuge · February 17, 2004, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
My system:

Asus P4S800D-E Deluxe
P4 3.0 OC'd to 3.3
1GB(2 sticks) OCZ 3700 gold Rev 2 (set at stock 2.5-3-3-7)
ATI 9800 pro
WD 74GB 10,000RPM Rator Sata
Lite on 4XDVD/CD burner.
SB audigy 5.1
Logitech 5.1 speakers
21" CRT

Spaced Cowboy,

I'd be interested to see your Aquamark3 scores, since your system is almost identical to mine, with the exception that you have the 9800, and the lone 74 GB raptor rather than the RAIDed 36 Gig raptors.

alva · February 17, 2004, 17:15

I'm surprised to see many of you already adapted SATA.
-

Damn, Spike is that all you have to pay for two SATA drives

Asher · February 17, 2004, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I have 3 questions btw, particularly in the light of SC's HD point.

With the SATA drives in RAID 0 config what is the performance increase over just 1 SATA drive and over say a decent ATA 133 drive?

SATA and ATA133 don't differ much in speed. SATA uses less CPU so it has less overhead, and it also offers better protection against data corruption. Technically SATA is 150MB/s and ATA133 is 133MB/s, but the bottleneck is on the physical HDs and not the connections.

Quote:

Also how do you reinstall windows with this setup?

I did a fresh install myself. At the beginning there's a ROM for the RAID chips that come up, where you can configure them before Windows or Linux or anything else loads. From that point on, it's effectively one disk.

My motherboard actually has two RAID controllers, each with two SATA connections -- and they can work together to make a 4-way SATA RAID. One is a Promise, the other the Via, both do RAID 0, RAID 1, and RAID 0+1.

Quote:

Is there a reason you have the Audigy and that network setup? My board has onboard stuff (and I presume yours does too) which seems not to suck too bad.

I have a good surround-sound speaker setup. The Audigy and Audigy 2 support Environmental Audio (EAX 1, 2, 3 and now 4) and this makes a huge difference to me. For a good demo of what it can do, see if a friend of yours has one of those cards and play Knights of the Old Republic or Call of Duty on them with EAX-HD (EAX3) enabled. Incredibly immersive.

Audigy 2s also use far less CPU, giving more performance, than onboard audio, and allow for far more advanced things in general. More EAX info is here: http://www.soundblaster.com/eax/

I have gigabit ethernet because it came with my motherboard.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Wow how did a non-overclocked 9700Pro come that close to Asher's score? I know the difference isn't huge between the cards, but I thought it'd be bigger than that.

Probably has to do with system memory. Athlon 64s are single channel (3.2GB/s) and P4s are dual channel (6.4GB/s).

Some benchmarks favor bandwidth, others latency. Athlon 64s have ~70 cycle latency to RAM, P4s have 200+ cycle latencies.

Spaced Cowboy · February 17, 2004, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by centrifuge

Spaced Cowboy,

I'd be interested to see your Aquamark3 scores, since your system is almost identical to mine, with the exception that you have the 9800, and the lone 74 GB raptor rather than the RAIDed 36 Gig raptors.

I'll see if I have time tonight, but I read somewhere that the 74 is faster than 2 raid 0 36s, hence my purchase (at a ridiculous $250, more than 2 separate 36s). Oh well, the memory was more than that anyhow.

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 17:32

Thanks for the answers. Would you put a ballpark figure on the performance increase of 2 SATA drives in a RAID 0 array over a solitary SATA drive?

If I do upgrade it's difficult to choose...........I could get 2 80GB SATA drives for just over £100. The Raptors are much more expensive (£160 for 2 of the 36GB ones). It's about the same for the bigger Raptor drive.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 17:36

This review has RAID performance statistics of non-RAID versus RAID0 for my Seagate 7200.7 SATA's using two different RAID controllers:

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 17:37

Btw I got 37,291 for Aquamark..........which is about 13th for computers with stock 9800 Pro graphics card settings and processor within +/- 20 Mhz or so. Some got 2000 higher.

Spaced Cowboy · February 17, 2004, 17:48

Asher...

Hmmm...looking at the PCMark score and is only ~2000, my single raptor is over 6000.

Another subject. I tripped out on the shut down time of my machine. 8 seconds from mouse click to no power. My old machine took 45-60 seconds. What a delta!

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 17:52

Hmm, I'm leaning towards 'doing an SC' and getting the big Raptor. I don't want more than 2 drives, since they get too hot with all 3 slots used.

The 2*36 Raptor with RAID 0 looks a little skimpy.

That leaves as option one the 2*80GB SATA drives (either Barracuda ones or the Maxtor one) using RAID 0.

Or, my preferred option, keep my newer ATA133 80GB drive, and get the 76GB Raptor.

Cost is comparable across the 2 options, though slightly cheaper for option 1. (Edit Actually it's about £60 cheaper)

What does everyone think?

Asher · February 17, 2004, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Asher...

Hmmm...looking at the PCMark score and is only ~2000, my single raptor is over 6000.

1) That's PCMark02, not 04
2) It's the overall system PCMark, not HD only

alva · February 17, 2004, 17:59

Quote:

SATA and ATA133 don't differ much in speed. SATA uses less CPU so it has less overhead, and it also offers better protection against data corruption.

Does it matter much if your MB is 'only' SATA ready?

centrifuge · February 17, 2004, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

The 2*36 Raptor with RAID 0 looks a little skimpy.

What does everyone think?

I'm happy with them

If by skimpy you mean lacking in size I have plenty of space(in fact probably more than I'll need for quite sometime)

...but my third drive has 250 gigs

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

Quote:

SATA and ATA133 don't differ much in speed. SATA uses less CPU so it has less overhead, and it also offers better protection against data corruption.

Does it matter much if your MB is 'only' SATA ready?

I'm not sure what that means.

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by centrifuge

I'm happy with them

If by skimpy you mean lacking in size I have plenty of space(in fact probably more than I'll need for quite sometime)

...but my third drive has 250 gigs

Yeah I mean in space.

I guess I could keep the 80GB ATA133 and get the 2 Raptors in a RAID 0 array. It costs about the same as the larger Raptor. But I am a little concerned about the heat with all 3 slots used..........everyone says the Raptors are hot, in more ways than one.

centrifuge · February 17, 2004, 18:17

IMHO, if you were just going to put them in a RAID 0, I would go for the lone larger Raptor, unless the smaller ones decide to drop in price.

When I built my computer, the 76 raptor wasn't yet available, otherwise that's probably what I would have done.

Nowadays, the benefit of having the 2 smaller ones would be in mirroring your data by setting up a RAID other than RAID 0.

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 18:19

Mirroring isn't what I am after I agree. Why do you think the bigger Raptor is the best choice?

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:20

I just went and...acquired...PCMark04 Pro to run the HDD benchie on my drives. Mind you, I haven't defragged in months...

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:22

The small drives don't cut it for me. After a few months I'm already pushing 100GB...

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 18:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I just went and...acquired...PCMark04 Pro to run the HDD benchie on my drives. Mind you, I haven't defragged in months...

Hmm, can the 76GB Raptor and 2*36GB owners post their scores please.

centrifuge · February 17, 2004, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Mirroring isn't what I am after I agree. Why do you think the bigger Raptor is the best choice?

It's a better choice only if it truly does give slightly better performance than the 2 RAIDed 36's. Plus as you said, it will free up some space in your case.

One other possible benefit of the two 36's is that if one goes out you'll have a good backup (albeit smaller), whereas if the the lone 76 goes out you'll have to shell out some more money to get another HDD.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:33

Haha! Ownage!

Beat this, suckers.

Quote:

Benchmark 2004-02-17 15-27-01

Processor:
Vendor AuthenticAMD
Name AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
Speed (MHz) 2198
Type 0.15.4.0
Flags 0xE1D3FBFF
Processors 1
Intel HyperThreading n/a
Memory (OS) 1072414720 1022 MB

Graphics hardware:
Description RADEON 9800 PRO
Vendor 4098 ATI
Device 20040 Radeon 9800 (R350)
SubSys 135170
Revision 0
Core clock (MHz) 486
Memory clock (MHz) 369
Driver ati2dvag.dll
Version 6.14.10.6422
Video Memory 134217728 128 MB
Texture Memory 183500800 175 MB

Operating system:
Version Microsoft Windows XP
Build Service Pack 1 2600

Benchmark results:
Pass AvgFPS MinFPS MaxFPS AvgFPS GFX AvgFPS CPU AvgTrianglesPerSecond MinTrianglesPerSecond MaxTrianglesPerSecond AvgPixelPerSecond DisplayWidth DisplayHeight DisplayDepth AntialiasingMode AntialiasingQuality AnisotropicFiltering DetailLevel
1 51.9402 14.5348 145.0000 71.4599 190.1262 15635655 2209039 39004855 n/a 1024 768 32 0 1 4 5

GFX score: 7146
CPU score: 9506

AquaMark score: 51940

Yes, you read that right.

centrifuge · February 17, 2004, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

Hmm, can the 76GB Raptor and 2*36GB owners post their scores please.

I would but I only have a 56k modem, and it would take hours to download

Plus I don't want to shell out the cash for the necessary features...

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:37

Haha! Ownage!

Beat this, suckers.

Code:

Benchmark 2004-02-17 15-27-01

Processor:
Vendor	AuthenticAMD
Name	AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
Speed (MHz)	2198
Type	0.15.4.0
Flags	0xE1D3FBFF
Processors	1
Intel HyperThreading	n/a
Memory (OS)	1072414720	1022 MB

Graphics hardware:
Description	RADEON 9800 PRO
Vendor	4098	ATI
Device	20040	Radeon 9800 (R350)
SubSys	135170
Revision	0
Core clock (MHz)	486
Memory clock (MHz)	369
Driver	ati2dvag.dll
Version	6.14.10.6422
Video Memory	134217728	128 MB
Texture Memory	183500800	175 MB

Operating system:
Version	Microsoft Windows XP 
Build	Service Pack 1 2600


Benchmark results:
Pass	AvgFPS	MinFPS	MaxFPS	AvgFPS GFX	AvgFPS CPU	AvgTrianglesPerSecond	MinTrianglesPerSecond	MaxTrianglesPerSecond	AvgPixelPerSecond		DisplayWidth	DisplayHeight	DisplayDepth	AntialiasingMode	AntialiasingQuality	AnisotropicFiltering	DetailLevel
1	51.9402	14.5348	145.0000	71.4599	190.1262	15635655	2209039	39004855	n/a		1024	768	32	0	1	4	5


GFX score:	7146
CPU score:	9506

AquaMark score:	51940

Yes, you read that right.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:39

How did I get a 486MHz Radeon 9800 Pro, you might ask?

The answer is, quite simply, awesome custom cooling.

Yes, that is two heatsinks each as large as the card with a plasma heatpipe connecting the two and a large fan mounted on top. The kicker? The thing's 20dB.

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by centrifuge

It's a better choice only if it truly does give slightly better performance than the 2 RAIDed 36's.

Yeah, but from what I'm reading now that doesn't look likely. What do you think Asher?

Asher · February 17, 2004, 18:51

I have a personal thing against WD since one of their Caviar drives crapper out on me, and they tend to be noisy.

Another way to look at 2 36 vs 1 76 is that if one of the drives in a RAID0 die, your data is lost anyway.

So technically having a RAID doubles the chances of failure.

DrSpike · February 17, 2004, 19:01

Yeah I'm trying to pull up some numbers now to compare. Basically it looks like two standard SATA drives in a RAID0 array are only slightly behind a solitary 74GB Raptor. 2 36GB Raptors in a RAID0 array are faster than the solitary 74GB by some margin.

MattH · February 17, 2004, 19:24

Hehe it's suprising how fast these drives fill up... My 120GB from 6 months ago has very little space left by now. Ahhhh, the joys of BitTorrent (for perfectly legal open-source programs and iso's, of course).

centrifuge · February 17, 2004, 19:42

Quote:

Beat this, suckers.

Asher, I just couldn't do it

Armed with only my stock cooling, this was the best that I was willing/able to get.
(I have a massive fear of frying my components)

44,209

It would appear that your graphics card is the primary benefit, since I got a CPU score of 10203, but a graphics score of only 5643