First IOXTREME Review

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-12-2009, 08:30 PM
lowfat

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3708/capturezkw.jpg
Can't say I am all that impressed w/ it so far.

Core i7 @ 4.2GHz
6GB @ 1200MHz
X58A-UD7
9800GX2 :p:
12-12-2009, 08:35 PM
Hondacity

dang...
12-12-2009, 08:56 PM
Computurd

hey lowfat lets see some other number, like a 4k sequential run. also lets see some other file size randoms and sequentials. you shouldn't get too much of a pinhole view on 4k. in gamin usage 64k is a more important file size for instance.
12-12-2009, 09:01 PM
Jor3lBR

Low could you run PCMark05: Windows Start Up, HDD General Use and Anti Virus Scan tests?
12-12-2009, 09:03 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jor3lBR

Low could you run PCMark05: Windows Start Up, HDD General Use and Anti Virus Scan tests?

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2161534

I just have the free version so here is a compare link.
12-12-2009, 09:09 PM
Jor3lBR

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=2161534

I just have the free version so here is a compare link.

Thanks man! Did you install PCMark05 on to the Fusion IO?
12-12-2009, 09:09 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computurd

hey lowfat lets see some other number, like a 4k sequential run.

4k sequential read, 64 queue depth.
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6349/captureja.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jor3lBR

Thanks man! Did you install PCMark05 on to the Fusion IO?

Yes
12-12-2009, 09:24 PM
One_Hertz

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

Can't say I am all that impressed w/ it so far.

Well that's unfortunate. Especially on the gaming benchies.
12-12-2009, 09:26 PM
lowfat

4k sequential write, 64 queue depth
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7572/captureui.jpg
12-12-2009, 09:29 PM
Jor3lBR

Quote:

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Well that's unfortunate. Especially on the gaming benchies.

Agreed.

I guess that to acquire more PCMark05 points I will need to get the outdated Acards :shakes:

God I was so excited even ordered one but now have to return it.

Probably it's still too soon and lowfat will need more time to put in results, kudos for him for being so kind with us :clap:
12-12-2009, 09:37 PM
Jor3lBR

I wonder why your result was so different from these on Vantage and PCMark HDD Suits:

http://hothardware.com/articleimages...e-vantage1.png

http://hothardware.com/articleimages...e-vantage2.png
12-12-2009, 09:52 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jor3lBR

I wonder why your result was so different from these on Vantage and PCMark HDD Suits:

http://hothardware.com/articleimages...e-vantage1.png

http://hothardware.com/articleimages...e-vantage2.png

I'll give Vantage a go now :shrug:
12-12-2009, 10:10 PM
lowfat

Windows Defender 210.34 MB/s
gaming 155.19 MB/s
importing pictures to Windows Photo Gallery 160.4 MB/s
Windows Vista startup 199.39 MB/s
video editing using Windows Movie Maker 111.6 MB/s
Windows Media Center 122.6 MB/s
adding music to Windows Media Player 122.36 MB/s
application loading 145.38 MB/s
http://smiliesftw.com/x/augentreher.gif
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/342/capturevki.jpg

EDIT: Something is wrong here. I have PCMark installed to the ioXtreme but all the benches are from the X25-M. I just ran the Vantage test on my X25-M and they were damn near identical.
12-12-2009, 10:43 PM
Computurd

vantage will only run on your boot drive.
12-12-2009, 11:13 PM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computurd

vantage will only run on your boot drive.

Then I wonder how hothardware was able to do it w/ their ioXtreme.

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Fusi...Review/?page=7
12-13-2009, 12:07 AM
Anvil

You can select which drive to use for the HDD tests from Options in Vantage.

I've used that option a lot of times.

Now, what about the CrystalDiskMark 3.0 beta run :)
12-13-2009, 12:29 AM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anvil

You can select which drive to use for the HDD tests from Options in Vantage.

I've used that option a lot of times.

Now, what about the CrystalDiskMark 3.0 beta run :)

I guess that would have been the smart place to look :p:

I'll do another run and the CDM 3.0 soon.
12-13-2009, 12:53 AM
lowfat

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/976/capturenk.jpg
12-13-2009, 04:16 AM
GullLars

I remember reading a comment David Flynn left on an Intel forum discussing the 1million IOPS setup they had.
His comment went like this:
Our drive does use some system memory and CPU cycles in order to streamline the I/Os and allows programs to access the physical data locations instead of LBA's by keeping a record of the LBA-to-physical mapping in system memory. This allows us to deliver higher I/O rates at lower latency overhead. This method adds only a few µs latency overhead to the physical NAND latency, and allow our MLC products to deliver accesstime lower than competitors SLC producs, and our SLC products unmatched.
This would also help explain why RAM usage is reverse proportional to Block Size like you quote. It's also true they use MFT for random writes to deliver better random r/w ratios than most competitors.
I expect next generation ioMemory (the architecture, not boards) to have an onboard decent sized non-volatile write buffer wich performs MFT-like actions of combining full erase-blocks in memory, thereby delivering RAM-like random write accesstimes and random write throughput close to sequential. This may allow RAM-readback, non-blocking writes, and if used with the same system memory LBA-to-physical mapping still deliver the same random read rates.

I can post IOmeter setups if you want, so you only have to edit the QD between each run. I thought you guys knew enough about IOmeter to make the config from the settings I mentioned, but i can make a custom one tailored for ioXtreme where you only have to change the 1 parameter.

BTW, that crystal 3.0 bench was unimpressive. Still, you used the 100MB lenght despite everybody yelling 1000MB or 2000MB lenght.
One single x25-M can do 160MB/s 4KB random QD32. Anvil has gotten >450MB/s with 3 x25-M from ICH10R. (103K 4KB random read IOPS in IOmeter)
12-13-2009, 07:17 AM
One_Hertz

Can you do some IOMeter runs that are identical to the HotHardware review? Just to see if your numbers match theirs or not. It seems to be too slow...
12-13-2009, 07:26 AM
Jor3lBR

Try to run on a different memory divider too. Higher mem speeds can result on a boost in performance :shrug:
12-13-2009, 09:29 AM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

Can you do some IOMeter runs that are identical to the HotHardware review? Just to see if your numbers match theirs or not. It seems to be too slow...

I just tried there 8k, 80% read, 80% random test. At the beginning of the test results were the same, but by the end of the 2 minutes the results had dropped in half. :rolleyes:
12-13-2009, 10:40 AM
One_Hertz

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowfat

I just tried there 8k, 80% read, 80% random test. At the beginning of the test results were the same, but by the end of the 2 minutes the results had dropped in half. :rolleyes:

oh so RAM is boosting the figures near the start and the real numbers are 50% slower? If that is true, then it is a pretty big fail on the part of the reviewers of hothardware to report this. Have you ran vantage properly yet?
12-13-2009, 10:59 AM
lowfat

Quote:

Originally Posted by One_Hertz

oh so RAM is boosting the figures near the start and the real numbers are 50% slower? If that is true, then it is a pretty big fail on the part of the reviewers of hothardware to report this. Have you ran vantage properly yet?

http://service.futuremark.com/result...&resultType=18

Still consistently slower than hothardware.
12-13-2009, 11:10 AM
One_Hertz

This is just upsetting. I wonder what the difference comes from and how they got double your result in some categories.

edit: I wonder if you are in a used state from all the IOMeter runs. Is there some sort of secure erase option?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page