Is CSA integrated LAN an issue if one uses a PCI NIC card?

[trikster2]

I've been wondering this for some time

If CSA is so wonderful

Why isn't the gig performance of CSA and non CSA MBs evaluated on anandtech and elsewhere?

Looks good on paper but........

 

[Peter]

Because the results are known.

CSA or 64-bit PCI or 66 MHz PCI -> full Gbit performance.
32-bit 33 MHz PCI -> chokiiiiiing.

 

[computer]

Good question and one I've been wondering about. I'll tell ya something strange; is that the 865 versions without CSA are faster than the 875 counterparts with CSA! Examples....IS7/IS7-G is much faster than the IC7/G; Asus P4P800 is faster than the P4C800, etc. It can't be because CSA slows a mobo down, that just doesn't make since. It's probably because the PAT mimicking of the 865 is better than the true PAT of the 875 versions.....just a guess.

In some anandtech CSA article they mentioned the CSA was much faster than a non CSA on their in-house gigabit LAN if that's any help to you. Link.
----------------
BTW if you think I'm lying Peter, here (removed) is a screenshot from a few minutes ago. Although only 456KB at this time, it's usually over 500KB overnight. (Link will remain active for only a day or so).

 

[Peter]

Your image is in a non-public location.

I don't care what you believe in - you can't have 1.6 Mbit/s, let alone 500 KByte/s which would be 4 MBit/s, of actual data throughput from a 1.536 Mbit/s physical line. Your software is lying to you.

 

[computer]

What do you mean by "non-public" location, you can't see the image?

 

[Peter]

---
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /images/d'load-speed.gif on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
---

But nevermind, I don't need to see the picture. There is no need to discuss or try to prove anything. You're on a 1500 kbit/s line, thus you absolutely obviously cannot receive 4000 kbit/s.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Peter
Because the results are known.

CSA or 64-bit PCI or 66 MHz PCI -> full Gbit performance.
32-bit 33 MHz PCI -> chokiiiiiing.

SHOW ME THE NUBERS

I want to see some actual throughput tests. Anything. Simple time to xfer a 500mb file or something would do

I've got nothing on my PCI bus. Nothing. So I should have 133mB/s == 1064mb/s available bandwitdth. Where's the choking?

Thanks!

 

[Peter]

Ethernet traffic is bi-directional. You need 2 Gbit/s bus bandwidth. Then, PCI bus hardly ever actually goes beyond 100 MByte/s throughput.

Do you really think Intel would have gone through all the length of putting the CSA port onto their chipsets AND making a special LAN chip for CSA if that didn't make any sense, performance-wise?

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Peter
Ethernet traffic is bi-directional. You need 2 Gbit/s bus bandwidth. Then, PCI bus hardly ever actually goes beyond 100 MByte/s throughput.

Do you really think Intel would have gone through all the length of putting the CSA port onto their chipsets AND making a special LAN chip for CSA if that didn't make any sense, performance-wise?

And the workstation app that takes full advantage of bi-directional networking?

can't think of any I use.

I'm sure CSA is wonderful, but if it is so wonderful why isn't ANYONE touting the real world, real users NUMBERS.

 

[Peter]

The workstation app will notice that the ethernet traffic is off the PCI bus AND off the chipset internal north-to-south bus (which is a mere 266 MB/s on Intel's). That benefits everything except AGP - IDE, sound, USB 2.0, you name it.

Why no numbers? Because I've wasted way more than enough time explaining things here. I'm not going to rip machines apart and benchmark them. Besides, would you then change your opinion? I don't think so. You just want something that feeds your BELIEF ... but technology is not religion.

Besides, it is a well known fact, that. Go ask your local sysadmin.

 

[computer]

Sorry Peter, you must be in Asia (APNIC), South America, or on RIPE (or possibly have a 4. or 24. IP address). I unfortunately had no choice other than to block access to those IP's due to a parasitic infestation of spambot crawling. I'll be glad to send it to you if you email me.

It's not 4000k, it's 456KB/sec in the screenshot (and over 500K sometimes). They were about 225k before tweaking.

 

[Peter]

I'm in Germany.

Anyhow, how many Kbits/s do you think your 500 KBytes/s are? 500 KByte/s x 8 bit/byte = 4000 Kbit/s. As is plain to see for everyone, this is physically impossible on your 1536 Kbit/s line. Ain't no discussing that.