Which motherboards are NCQ compatible at this point?

[Sqube]

It's my impression that you need driver support to enable NCQ, so which motherboards have drivers that currently support it? Who's coming with it soon? Who looks like they're never going to do it?

Who's actually going to answer my questions?

 

[LED]

Who's actually going to answer my questions?

The Search Index and it has plenty many more answers...

 

[S0Y73NTGR33N]

Originally posted by: Sqube
Who's actually going to answer my questions?

Bad idea to get snotty before we even answer your question.. now I don't really feel like answering at all.. 😛

-green

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: S0Y73NTGR33N

Originally posted by: Sqube
Who's actually going to answer my questions?

Bad idea to get snotty before we even answer your question.. now I don't really feel like answering at all.. 😛

-green

i think you are reading a lot in to that...I find it hard to read emmtions through words alone, especially ones so simple as that....Lets give him the benefit of the doubt....

It is not like he asked this 2 weeks ago and just edited that comment in....

 

[S0Y73NTGR33N]

EDIT

WHOOPS.. too many windows open 😱

 

[Sqube]

Sorry, sorry... I'm really sarcastic by nature and get tired of putting 😉 and 😀 and 😛 into every post.

And just so you know, the link provided doesn't answer my questions either. I know nForce4 has support for NCQ, but you need the drivers or you get mega-data-death-loss-doom-sad-puppy kicking.

So... who's currently got actual support for NCQ? And who's planning on getting it? And who's not getting it?

And who's gonna answer my questions?😉😀😛

 

[LED]

All because a chipset needs drivers to support NCQ doesn't mean it will not so on top of the better NF4 Mobo's there are:
VIA's VT8251, ALi's M1683, Intels 915 and 925's... I suspect ATI's will have them along with the next SIS chipset as it's most likely all Mobo's will eventually offer them in one form or another

 

[Arcanedeath]

I'm really not sure why everyone wants NCQ it's a feature that hurts desktop performance, Check out Storagereview.com for more details, but unless you are running a server you don't want NCQ on.

 

[Algere]

Originally posted by: Arcanedeath
I'm really not sure why everyone wants NCQ it's a feature that hurts desktop performance, Check out Storagereview.com for more details, but unless you are running a server you don't want NCQ on.

Did they bench 2 or so applications attempting to write to disc concurrently under NCQ? That's what I heard NCQ would improve performance on.

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: Algere

Originally posted by: Arcanedeath
I'm really not sure why everyone wants NCQ it's a feature that hurts desktop performance, Check out Storagereview.com for more details, but unless you are running a server you don't want NCQ on.

Did they bench 2 or so applications attempting to write to disc concurrently under NCQ? That's what I heard NCQ would improve performance on.

They benchmarked Raptors and Cheetahs with up to 64 simultaneous requests. NCQ doesn't pull ahead until you're constantly getting over 4 requests, and in regular desktop use it is slower.

SR's main NCQ article:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_6.html

 

[Tostada]

And if you compare Raptors head to head with and without NCQ, you see that the drive is about 20% faster without NCQ for most desktop/workstration benchmarks. With NCQ it is slightly faster in server benchmarks.

http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchm...ves=1&devID_0=259&devID_1=267&devCnt=2

 

[LED]

I agree totally with Tostada and have read the SR review on NCQ...that is why there is an ON-Off option for it. Desktop users need not to bother

 

[Ronin13]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: Algere

Originally posted by: Arcanedeath
I'm really not sure why everyone wants NCQ it's a feature that hurts desktop performance, Check out Storagereview.com for more details, but unless you are running a server you don't want NCQ on.

Did they bench 2 or so applications attempting to write to disc concurrently under NCQ? That's what I heard NCQ would improve performance on.

They benchmarked Raptors and Cheetahs with up to 64 simultaneous requests. NCQ doesn't pull ahead until you're constantly getting over 4 requests, and in regular desktop use it is slower.

SR's main NCQ article:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_6.html

Forgive my ignorance, but that article deals with TCQ and not NCQ. Are they comparable? It seems they may not be, as the last sentence reads: 'SATA NCQ is also just now entering prime time. As always, StorageReview will be there.'

 

[imported_Hi]

only intel 9xx series chipsets and nvida 4 series, and maybe the VIA kt890 chipsets

 

[boshuter]

NCQ is going to be the next RAID 0.... it's not going to do anything for you, but everyone is going to want it..:roll:

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Ronin13

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: Algere

Originally posted by: Arcanedeath
I'm really not sure why everyone wants NCQ it's a feature that hurts desktop performance, Check out Storagereview.com for more details, but unless you are running a server you don't want NCQ on.

Did they bench 2 or so applications attempting to write to disc concurrently under NCQ? That's what I heard NCQ would improve performance on.

They benchmarked Raptors and Cheetahs with up to 64 simultaneous requests. NCQ doesn't pull ahead until you're constantly getting over 4 requests, and in regular desktop use it is slower.

SR's main NCQ article:
http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200406/20040625TCQ_6.html

Forgive my ignorance, but that article deals with TCQ and not NCQ. Are they comparable? It seems they may not be, as the last sentence reads: 'SATA NCQ is also just now entering prime time. As always, StorageReview will be there.'

TCQ = Tagged Command Queueing.
NCQ = Native Command Queueing.
I'd say they were the same thing.