SATA hard drive more than _2x faster_ in Compatibility Mode

Message

cwichner · #1 Post by **cwichner** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:55 pm

(Update: See post Oct 3rd 7:22am for benchmark data)

My time with my T60p has almost entirely been spent running Vista (now on Build 5728), and I have been concerned that the hard drive seemed slow, even though I have the 7200 RPM drive. It appears that the Vista generic SATA drivers perform much slower than ATA drivers, and there is a simple fix.

Using SiSoftware's Sandra Lite benchmarking software, I found my 7200 RPM drive was performing at less than half of where it should be (with throughput and seek time below a 4200 RPM drive). Changing the SATA setting in the Bios to "Compatibility Mode" caused Vista to install new drivers for four devices, and a subsequent benchmark showed my drive performing near the 7200 RPM benchmark drive. Also, Vista seemed to boot in 1/3rd the time (estimated, but it was dramatically faster and snappier).

On a side note, Defrag ran for a long time after the change, so I'll speculate that it can do more with the PATA drivers than the generic SATA drivers.

Anyone else have similar experiences? Here's the link for Sandra Lite: http://www.sisoftware.net/index.html?di ... angx=en&a=

Anyone else want to benchmark before and after and let us know?

Enjoy,
Craig

coolsilicon · #2 Post by **coolsilicon** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:10 pm

Same here: I reran that integrated benchmark thing of Vista and the number for my hd went from 2.8 to 4.4 - makes me wonder what's up with Vista and SATA.

ssimon · #3 Post by **ssimon** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:55 pm

Hmmm... weird, I am running VISTA RC1 (5600) in AHCI mode on 7200RPM HD and my "Windows Experience Index" is at an overall 4.3 with the following breakdown:

CPU: 4.7
RAM: 4.8
GPU: 4.3
GAM: 4.3
HDD: 5.0
(you can see my model in my sig below)

So interestingly enough the HD seems to run the fastest as it is the only one that gets a full "5.0" top mark...

Anyone else?

cwichner · #4 Post by **cwichner** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:32 pm

Good catch...My Windows Experience Index stayed the same before and after the driver change, at 5.1. But the SiSoftware benchmarks definitely changed, as did my subjective sense of the performance.

Ssimon, want to try the SiSoftware benchmark and report back the results?

Coolsilicon -- I too had a slow Windows Index score when I first installed Vista. A few days later I re-ran the test and it was higher by about the same amount as you saw. This was all before switching to Compatibility mode. Based on what I have seen, I think the original, lower score better represents the actual speed with the SATA drivers.

coolsilicon · #5 Post by **coolsilicon** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:43 am

I switched back to AHCI and got the same number for the diskspeed under Vista as before in compatible-mode. Interesting: I had to reactivate Vista due to a "change in hardware".

#6 Post by **GomJabbar** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:52 am

coolsilicon wrote:I switched back to AHCI and got the same number for the diskspeed under Vista as before in compatible-mode. Interesting: I had to reactivate Vista due to a "change in hardware".

Although the following information is dated, and really only applies directly to versions of Windows before Vista, it is still informational.

Windows Product Activation (WPA)
on Windows XP
Version 3.2 — Last Updated Novemnber 15, 2005
by Alex Nichol, MS-MVP

cwichner · #7 Post by **cwichner** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:22 am

I just ran the SiSoftware Sandra disk benchmarks, changing only the SATA BIOS setting from AHCI to Compatibility mode (Compatibility mode forces Vista to use the ATA drivers, rather than the SATA ones). The results show that the ATA drivers are 2x to 3x faster than SATA. For example, boot time (from Post to login screen) drops from 1 minute 10 seconds in ACHI mode to 31 seconds using the ATA drivers. (!) From the benchmarks below, using the SATA drivers our hard drives have the performance of a 30GB, 2MB cache, 4.2k drive.

Here are the benchmarks from SiSoft Sandra (run in Administrator mode):

ATA Drivers

Drive Index (max transfer): 50 MB/s
Random Access Time: 14 ms
Full Stroke Access Time: 13 ms

Benchmark breakdown:
Speed at position 0%: 47 MB/s
Speed at position 3%: 50 MB/s
Speed at position 50%: 40 MB/s
Speed at position 76%: 33 MB/s
Speed at position 96%: 27 MB/s

Closest reference drive: Maxtor Max9 (desktop drive) 80GB, ATA100, 2mb, 7.2k)

SATA Drivers

Drive Index (max transfer): 24 MB/s
Random Access Time: 14 ms
Full Stroke Access Time: 24 ms

Benchmark breakdown:
Speed at position 0%: 19 MB/s
Speed at position 10%: 24 MB/s
Speed at position 50%: 19 MB/s
Speed at position 76%: 15 MB/s
Speed at position 96%: 10 MB/s

Closest reference drive: IBM Travelstar 30 GB, ATA 100, 2 MB, 4.2k

Notably, my Windows Experience Index _does not change_ if I'm using the SATA or ATA drivers, so it is not a reliable indicator of actual HD performance.

MS has some work to do on their SATA drivers...until then I'm using Compatibility Mode. Does anyone have any data on XP that shows a performance difference using ATA and SATA drivers? Obviously I had hoped that SATA would be faster (eg using NCQ), but I am not so sure the SATA advantage is anything other than theoretical.

Enjoy,
Craig

coolsilicon · #8 Post by **coolsilicon** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:59 pm

Alright, I did a test with SiSoft Sandra 2007 SP1. Under XP, both times 36 MB/s, under Vista it's 33 vs. 36 (SATA/Compatible). That's far less of a difference than you have expirienced. Again, after switching to compitble mode I had to reactivate Vista.

GomJabbar,
interesting site with nice tools (Volume ID, for example).

cwichner · #9 Post by **cwichner** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:24 pm

Coolsilicon, what drive do you have, and what Thinkpad model? As for the activation, I haven't had to do it.

coolsilicon · #10 Post by **coolsilicon** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:46 pm

Coolsilicon, what drive do you have, and what Thinkpad model? As for the activation, I haven't had to do it

80 gigs Hitachi/5400 rpm, T60 (forgot to update my sig). Since you're running the latest RC1 too, I wonder why you didn't have to reactivate it.

cwichner · #11 Post by **cwichner** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:34 pm

Looks like you're getting better performance on the SATA drivers than I am. I might have a different IDE Controller chipset...I have the "Intel 82801 GBM/GHM (ICH7-M Family) Serial ATA Storage Controller 27C4". You? (In Device Manager...)

Still interesting that your max throughput is 9% faster in Compatibility than AHCI (when one should expect the other way around). The surprising thing to me on the benchmarks, more important than max throughput, was that the seek time was almost half, and the speed at slower parts of the disk were so much slower (27MB/s vs 10 MB/s at 96% of the drive). Seems strange that a driver would have this kind of nonlinear effect.

coolsilicon · #12 Post by **coolsilicon** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:12 am

AFAIK, all T60 models (with a dedicated graphics card) have the same chipset.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945pm/index.htm

I'm on my desktop right now, have to look later what device manager says (busy, busy..).

Torque · #13 Post by **Torque** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:47 pm

This only concerns the T60?

Nebzar · #14 Post by **Nebzar** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:01 am

I changed the bios SATA mode of my T60 from AHCI to compatibility, and I confirm that RC1 boot time and general behaviour feels much speedier.

Now I have upgraded the installation to RC2, and I would like to see how it goes in AHCI mode.

But, here is the problem: if I change the bios SATA back to AHCI, Vista RC2 won't boot at all: a blue fatal screen jumps in at boot, even in safe mode. Neither trying to "repair system" with the RC2 installation cd helps, since it finds unrecoverable errors.

On the other hand, RC2 boots regularly with bios SATA in compatibility mode (altough it seems slightly slower than RC1).

My question is the following: is there any way, other than reinstalling RC2 from scratch with bios SATA in AHCI mode, to have RC2 reloading AHCI drivers at boot?

Thanks and best regards

coolsilicon · #15 Post by **coolsilicon** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:04 am

Torque,
I wouldn't think so. The aforementioned chipset can be found in many machines nowadays (intel 945 chipset), so other models with this chipset and a SATA-harddrive /perhaps/ could be affected. I have now installed RC2 and have yet to run the hd-test of SiSoft Sandra.

#16 Post by **GomJabbar** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:10 am

Nebzar wrote:My question is the following: is there any way, other than reinstalling RC2 from scratch with bios SATA in AHCI mode, to have RC2 reloading AHCI drivers at boot?

I believe if you can install the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, that would fix the problem. I do not have a SATA drive to test. You can try Windows update to see if it finds the driver. You can try Intel's website to see if they have the driver. Or you can try to load the XP version of the driver.

Nebzar · #17 Post by **Nebzar** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:50 am

GomJabbar wrote:
Nebzar wrote:My question is the following: is there any way, other than reinstalling RC2 from scratch with bios SATA in AHCI mode, to have RC2 reloading AHCI drivers at boot?
I believe if you can install the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, that would fix the problem. I do not have a SATA drive to test. You can try Windows update to see if it finds the driver. You can try Intel's website to see if they have the driver. Or you can try to load the XP version of the driver.

Thank you GomJabbar, but I think there is a catch 22 here: I downloaded the Intel matrix Storage Manager (a beta for Vista) from Intel, and when I try to install it from within Vista it says to me that my machine does not meet the minimal requirements. This probably is because the bios SATA mode is in compatibility. On the other hand, if I change to AHCI mode Vista won't boot, so I won't be able to install the Manager... any hint?

cwichner · #18 Post by **cwichner** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:11 am

Nebzar,

Two suggestions: 1) See if you can do an "upgrade" installation when booting from the Vista disk. 2) With Windows running, do an "Upgrade" install, and at the first reboot enable AHCI.

Craig

Nebzar · #19 Post by **Nebzar** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:14 am

Thanks, tonite I'll try (the installation CD is at home

)

Regards

#20 Post by **GomJabbar** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:42 am

I don't know which driver you are downloading from Intel, but I do see the following....

The Intel® Chipset Software Installation Utility includes SATA support, and Vista beta 2 support. The following are portions of the Read Me (txt) file.

Read Me file wrote:************************************************************
* Product: Intel(R) Chipset Software Installation Utility
* Release: Production Version
* Version: 8.1.1.1001
* Date: May 31 2006
************************************************************
The Intel(R) Chipset Software Installation Utility installs
Windows* INF files to the target system. These files outline
to the operating system how to configure the Intel(R) chipset
components in order to ensure that the following features
function properly:

- Core PCI and ISAPNP Services
- PCIe Support
- IDE/ATA33/ATA66/ATA100 Storage Support
- SATA Storage Support
- USB Support
- Identification of Intel(R) Chipset Components in
the Device Manager
************************************************************
2. One of the following operating systems must be
fully installed and running on the system
before installing this software:

Microsoft Windows Server 2003* with Service Pack 1
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition*
Microsoft Windows XP Professional* x64 Edition
Microsoft Windows XP* with Service Pack 2
Microsoft Windows 2000* with Service Pack 4
Microsoft Windows Vista* (Beta 2 version)
************************************************************

I think I would try to install this if it was me. But please realize I am just making educated guesses here.

Nebzar · #21 Post by **Nebzar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:59 am

At the end of all the trials I had to do a clean installation, since the Intel Chipset Installation Utility (which I had indeed installed) did not solve the boot fatal error, neither I succeded in doing an upgrade (not enough free space on the partition).

By the way, the Intel Matrix Storage Manager for Vista I downloaded and unsuccessfully tried to install is this:

http://drivers.softpedia.com/get/Other- ... beta.shtml

Anyway, after the clean installation of RC2 I ran Sandra benchmarks, and here are the results (disk is 100GB 7200rpm):

-----------------------------------------------------
Under XP:
-----------------------------------------------------
Drive Index : 51 MB/s
Random Access Time : 15 ms
System Timer : 3.6MHz

Benchmark Breakdown
Speed at position 0% : 48MB/s (94%)
Speed at position 3% : 50MB/s (98%)
Speed at position 6% : 51MB/s (100%)
Speed at position 10% : 44MB/s (87%)
Speed at position 13% : 43MB/s (85%)
Speed at position 16% : 45MB/s (89%)
Speed at position 20% : 46MB/s (91%)
Speed at position 23% : 47MB/s (93%)
Speed at position 26% : 46MB/s (91%)
Speed at position 30% : 47MB/s (92%)
Speed at position 33% : 44MB/s (87%)
Speed at position 36% : 45MB/s (89%)
Speed at position 40% : 44MB/s (88%)
Speed at position 43% : 43MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 46% : 39MB/s (77%)
Speed at position 50% : 38MB/s (76%)
Speed at position 53% : 37MB/s (73%)
Speed at position 56% : 39MB/s (77%)
Speed at position 60% : 38MB/s (74%)
Speed at position 63% : 36MB/s (72%)
Speed at position 66% : 37MB/s (73%)
Speed at position 70% : 38MB/s (74%)
Speed at position 73% : 33MB/s (66%)
Speed at position 76% : 36MB/s (71%)
Speed at position 80% : 32MB/s (62%)
Speed at position 83% : 30MB/s (59%)
Speed at position 86% : 29MB/s (57%)
Speed at position 90% : 29MB/s (57%)
Speed at position 93% : 29MB/s (57%)
Speed at position 96% : 25MB/s (50%)
Speed at position 100% : 25MB/s (49%)
Random Access Time : 15 ms (estimated)
Full Stroke Access Time : 14 ms (estimated)

-----------------------------------------------------
Under Vista:
-----------------------------------------------------

Drive Index : 49 MB/s
Random Access Time : 17 ms
System Timer : 14MHz

Benchmark Breakdown
Speed at position 0% : 49MB/s (100%)
Speed at position 3% : 48MB/s (98%)
Speed at position 6% : 47MB/s (95%)
Speed at position 10% : 41MB/s (83%)
Speed at position 13% : 43MB/s (88%)
Speed at position 16% : 45MB/s (91%)
Speed at position 20% : 43MB/s (87%)
Speed at position 23% : 47MB/s (95%)
Speed at position 26% : 46MB/s (94%)
Speed at position 30% : 47MB/s (94%)
Speed at position 33% : 44MB/s (89%)
Speed at position 36% : 42MB/s (85%)
Speed at position 40% : 44MB/s (90%)
Speed at position 43% : 43MB/s (86%)
Speed at position 46% : 39MB/s (79%)
Speed at position 50% : 38MB/s (78%)
Speed at position 53% : 35MB/s (71%)
Speed at position 56% : 37MB/s (74%)
Speed at position 60% : 34MB/s (69%)
Speed at position 63% : 36MB/s (74%)
Speed at position 66% : 37MB/s (75%)
Speed at position 70% : 35MB/s (70%)
Speed at position 73% : 32MB/s (64%)
Speed at position 76% : 36MB/s (72%)
Speed at position 80% : 30MB/s (60%)
Speed at position 83% : 28MB/s (57%)
Speed at position 86% : 27MB/s (56%)
Speed at position 90% : 30MB/s (60%)
Speed at position 93% : 27MB/s (55%)
Speed at position 96% : 22MB/s (45%)
Speed at position 100% : 25MB/s (50%)
Random Access Time : 17 ms (estimated)
Full Stroke Access Time : 24 ms (estimated)

I think that with RC2 sata drivers have been made much more efficient, since the performance seems much similar under Vista and under XP.

Hoping this may be of interest for all, have my best regards and, again, thanks for your suggestions.

Neb

SATA hard drive more than _2x faster_ in Compatibility Mode

SATA hard drive more than _2x faster_ in Compatibility Mode

Who is online