HDD performance decreases as FSB increases?

[Bovinicus]

Try downloading the latest drivers. Maybe they will allow you to run DMA. Try re-installing the entire contorller as well.

 

[Jeff7181]

Don't use diskeeper... and I have the latest drivers I think... the 4 in 1 I have is 4.43, and I did reinstall the controllers

 

[bigpow]

Now all of you got me worried...
Here's the HDTach screenshot I took earlier with stock speed.

WD1200JB_A7N8X.gif

WD 120GB SE with A7N8X Dx, 1002B1 BIOS, Asus 1.16 NF2 Driver.

Stock speed everything, showing 57.4% CPU util.
Also, what are those spikes?
Yikes!

Is it possible my "home-made" rounded cable cause that?

I'll have to run another test with ribbon cable and then o/c the system again.


Geez, I guess I'm lucky no data corruption problem so far...

 

[Jeff7181]

I get those spikes too... I wondered about it too, then I defragged and tried it again and there were less of them, so I think it has to do with fragmentation somewhat.

My board is a KT400, and your's is an nForce2, and we're getting high CPU utilization... so that tells me it's not the chipset or drivers. Unless both chipsets have faulty IDE drivers. But I doubt it... I wonder if it has something to do with the drive itself? Where did you get your's?

I just saw benchmarks on THG showing the WD1200JB using less than 8% of the CPU during their tests.

It's strange... that's pretty much the only way I notice a difference... when I search for or copy files and watch the Performance meter in the Task Manager CPU utilization doesn't get that high. But when I run HDTach and watch it, it goes to 100% and stays there till the test is finished. Other than that, my benchmark scores are fairly good considering the componants I'm using, so I don't know... maybe it doesn't have that big of an effect?

 

[bigpow]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I get those spikes too... I wondered about it too, then I defragged and tried it again and there were less of them, so I think it has to do with fragmentation somewhat.

My board is a KT400, and your's is an nForce2, and we're getting high CPU utilization... so that tells me it's not the chipset or drivers. Unless both chipsets have faulty IDE drivers. But I doubt it... I wonder if it has something to do with the drive itself? Where did you get your's?

I just saw benchmarks on THG showing the WD1200JB using less than 8% of the CPU during their tests.

It's strange... that's pretty much the only way I notice a difference... when I search for or copy files and watch the Performance meter in the Task Manager CPU utilization doesn't get that high. But when I run HDTach and watch it, it goes to 100% and stays there till the test is finished. Other than that, my benchmark scores are fairly good considering the componants I'm using, so I don't know... maybe it doesn't have that big of an effect?

So... it's not because of the rounded cable afterall... and not because of the overclock.
Driver ... we both are using latest * greatest...

Hmm... This WD1200JB came from Dell.com almost a year ago

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
To make it easy for ya so you don't have to click the link to see my Rig, here's my specs...

XP1700 T-bred (AIUGA @ 1667, 12.5x133)
MSI KT4VL mobo
PNY PC2100 DDR (512)
WD Caviar SE
GF4 Ti4200 (oc'd to 280/540)

My problem is that when I increase the FSB, the hard drive seems to slow down. I don't know if it's a latency issue with things running out of sync or what. I had it running at 165x10.5 for a while, and my PCMark HDD scores were about 940... and when I have it set at 133x12.5 my score is in the 1080's - 1090's. My RAM doesn't like to be run at 333 Mhz at anything except CAS 3, so I thought maybe that was the problem.

Has anyone else had any similar experiences? I'd like to upgrade my RAM, but I can't afford to right now so I'm stuck using this "value" RAM right now that I got from Best Buy for $80.

wholly crap, we've got the same system, minus the memory and video card

 

[RU482]

sandra results for me

11x166Mhz

Benchmark Breakdown
Buffered Read : 85 MB/s
Sequential Read : 31 MB/s
Random Read : 6 MB/s
Buffered Write : 71 MB/s
Sequential Write : 32 MB/s
Random Write : 12 MB/s
Average Access Time : 9 ms (estimated)

11x133Mhz

Benchmark Breakdown
Buffered Read : 86 MB/s
Sequential Read : 44 MB/s
Random Read : 6 MB/s
Buffered Write : 64 MB/s
Sequential Write : 41 MB/s
Random Write : 13 MB/s
Average Access Time : 9 ms (estimated)

Hmm?

 

[Bovinicus]

Someone should try to run the benchmark at both stock speeds and at a slightly overclocked state. Maybe the effects don't become detrimental until after a 37MHz PCI clock, or something in that neighborhood.

 

[Jeff7181]

I have... I ran at 12.5x133 Mhz FSB, and then at 12.5x138 Mhz FSB and there wasn't a noticeable difference. It only happens at higher FSB settings... If I could run at 166 I would try it, but it won't post at all at 166... I've had to reset the CMOS every time I tried it.

Anyone with a FSB of 166 have high CPU utilization?