Anandtech wrong on on not including SSD in Performance Midrange recommendations?

[Anvil]

And now the internet has realized that people can fight over a stupid HDD benchmark in PC Mark Vantage...

LOL,

Quite silly isn't it , great remark and certainly put things into perspective.

Well, the Internet opens for new adventures, what can I say.

[kiwi]

Where is fail?

Normally you can discuss with customer details such as BD need or better audio than onboard etc. But generally system is very good, I don't see a problem

[GullLars]

The problem can be summarized as the article giving advice for a $1700 performance midrange computer, lists a BD player as a core component, but the original posting said basically "SSD is not an option ATM for this build, i'd need an 160GB+ SSD at a nice price to put it in the build". They now posted an edit mentioning SSD as an option.

[Computurd]

well that run is very impressive ourassi, but i do cry foul. if you are on ICH10R, how in the world are you getting 1234.15 MB/s on your media center run? that defies explanation, unless you are using a ram drive, etc. can you explain how it is possible that you are getting the sequential speeds at such small file sizes? i mean 1200 with two drives that are spec'd at what? 250/mb sec? and that is not at small files, either. you are getting the speed of FIVE x-25's with two devices?

[Computurd]

all of the numbers are suspect...
2468.29 MB/s !!!!! for windows media?
738.66 MB/s for video editing? get real man.

What ram drive program are you running?

the number one spot on vantage does not have speeds that fast, or even close, and that is with 4GB of ram cache.

So, while others may not call you a cheater, I WILL.

I have no qualms with telling you that i am not stupid, and if you think some of the other guys around here believe that is real you are full of .
anyone who knows what they are looking at knows that is not a standard run with two ssd's. it is an insult that you expect us too believe it, as well.


i see that the age of running PCMark Vantage with cheats has begun! you should go over and do some runs on PCM05 as well

[Ourasi]

well that run is very impressive ourassi, but i do cry foul. if you are on ICH10R, how in the world are you getting 1234.15 MB/s on your media center run? that defies explanation, unless you are using a ram drive, etc. can you explain how it is possible that you are getting the sequential speeds at such small file sizes? i mean 1200 with two drives that are spec'd at what? 250/mb sec? and that is not at small files, either. you are getting the speed of FIVE x-25's with two devices?

If you absolutely want to blaim someone, try Intel, not me... I'm on a optimized stripe for Vantage, and the only "cheat" is WBC, and that hardly qualify as a cheat, as it is the most common controller out there and the most commonly used setting, bootable and in daily use, what more can one ask for..

all of the numbers are suspect...
2468.29 MB/s !!!!! for windows media?
738.66 MB/s for video editing? get real man.

What ram drive program are you running?


i see that the age of running PCMark Vantage with cheats has begun! you should go over and do some runs on PCM05 as well

If you took the time to follow my adwise on how to set up ICH for optimal performance, you'd see how rediculous those statements are... Again, anyone setting ICH raid0 up this way will get these numbers, and as you know, it's only meeningless numbers....
This is how ICH Raid0 always have been in Vantage, nothing new, actually pretty old...
Most benches, even the best benches, suits ICH+Raid0+RST/IATA+SSD like a charm.

Stop the silly "cry wolf" routine, and try it yourself, I have done enough providing of evidence, it's time for some "hands on" experience, don't you agree?

[GullLars]

From what i understand, those numbers can be explained by 3 letters: WBC.
There's also an option in windows that allows you to use all avalible system memory for write buffering, wich would be able to do 2GB/s+ bursts.
Cache != cheat.
Setting up task-speciffic caching for the benchmark you would never use on a real system, or that would give little to no effect on a real system, could be concidered cheating, but as far as i've seen that's not what Ourasi's doing.
BTW, Anvil also got around 85-90K HDD score on a suite full run with Intel SSDs running off ICH10R.
Apparently Tiltevros also did:

i cant understand this... im getting 94k+ on my boot drives with OS and everything on it..

Edit: ourasi beat me to it i see :P

[Computurd]

maybe you can provide a better translation than google, because according to this, you are speaking of ramdrive results in reference to your "legit" runs over on the norwegian forum:\

[Computurd]

heres a closeup:

[GullLars]

If you read what it says, you'd see it says he is #6 on the list if you don't count the people using RAMdrives, not that he is using one.
Norwegian quote with better translation

Tok en runde med kun Vantage HDD suite, og lastet opp resultatet: http://service.futur...are?pcmv=319897

På HDD lista havner jeg med to lusne E på en 6. plass, da er disse med ramdrive trukket fra selvfølgelig. En E til så er det vel bare ramdrivene foran tipper jeg :thumbup:

Synes ikke det er galt, mtp prisene på kontrollerne på denne lista, og mengdene med cache de fleste her har.... ICH10R FTW

"(I) Did a round of just the Vantage HDD suite, and uploaded the result to *link*

I'm placing nr 6 on the HDD list with two lousy E's, when the guys with ramdrive are not counted of cause. One more E and it will just be the ramdrives ahead of me i'm guessing *smiley*

I don't think that's bad, concidering the prices of the controllers people on this list use, and the ammount of cache most of them have. ICH10R FTW"

EDIT: that third E may be comming to him soon, he mentioned on the norwegian forum that he has money avalible to get it, and would like to.

[Computurd]

lol i like your comments about me as well.

.

.Childishly ignorant brat, more is not to say on the matter ...

[GullLars]

Pleese don't make this a flamewar, nobody wants that, and the discussion is off topic in the first place.
EDIT: and the comment was in passing as a sort of a sigh, saying you were acting like one in this speciffic thread (and possibly with thought of Napalm's thread), not that you are one.

[Computurd]

lol i like some of the stuff that was said over there about other members here too, as well guess im not the only one...funny stuff. you guys even mention people by name

@gullars- sorry bro but i refuse to believe anything posted anymore. LOL. just posting that result and expecting me to believe it is insulting.
if you use ramdrives and such, cool. just dont expect me to believe that TWO x-25e are pulling those numbers.

WBC effects read speed?????????? could you tell me what WBC stands for?

TILT pulled his scores with an array on a controller/.

[mbreslin]

If anything were said about me in some other language I would just close my eyes and pretend/assume they're saying I'm awesome.

[GullLars]

We usually are mr beslin, we usually are

(edit: and yes, i slaughtered your name for fun )

[mbreslin]

Touche' guiilars.

[Tiltevros]

case is closed for all. Next subject plzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!

Everyone here have their own wick points. For me when i dont understand something im getting angry with my self cause i dont know how and why. This is nothing personal its just me and my self. I hope that with my behavour didnt insult anyone here.

Paul there is nothing "weird" at the results. i will provide u some links that shows ICHxR cache is engeged to the results so there is no problem there.
After long reading i have come with this. ICHxR use the amount of L3 cache management for Writing Back method so if u test it on HDD tune 4 u will see that cache goes upto 8MB or in some cases upto 16MB.
So the process is when data been used the L3 cache management keeps them and time to time sent them to Ram whitch after stays their untill the TTL (time to live counter) ends. There is no tune for that TTL counter.
I hope that this argument come to the end.

Respect to all
Evripidis Ch.

P.S. i think that we all do nice work here but somehow the information that we provide are poor and that counts me too.
i hope that we can put everything in order to make this section been understanding for all with our contribution of our Knowledge.

[Anvil]

Tiltevros,

I won't make any comments on you know whos remarks.

However, your'e obviously an honest and fair man, you earned some respect in that last post.

Now, lets move on!

How about that VM thread?

[Anvil]

If anything were said about me in some other language I would just close my eyes and pretend/assume they're saying I'm awesome.

We don't normally comment on anyones computers unless they are really good or really bad.

I guess you know what category your rig is at

[Computurd]

well hate to bring this back up but noticed some strange stuff with teh ICH10R along the course of some testing i am doing.
for some random reason ended up with a 30gb vertex and a 64gb kingston v series in a raid 0...lol i know, different sizes

anyways set up raid o and set WBC to on, and first thing i did is run some everest to check the speed of the array, and lo and behold it gave me 1200 MB/s!!! off ich10r with two devices. NOW i get it! there is no way it is pumping 1200 mb/s of course, but the WBC is somehow totally inflating the numbers, making it really unrealistic. wondering if this is the same thing as the ich10r runs we have seen on vantage? this phenomena? its like some sort of reporting error or something. dunno.

[Computurd]

ocz vertex 30 GB and a 64gb kingston raid 0

[bot@xs]

why is the drive 234.5GB? it should around 50GB

[Computurd]

yes it is very strange it is like it is reporting strange.....maybe there is an error with my comp i dunno.

[bot@xs]

does it show the same size in any other bench or disk manager?