EPoX EP-9U1697-GLi: ULi M1697 Goes Mainstream
by Gary Key on March 15, 2006 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Firewire and USB Performance
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk would be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput.
Our first efforts at testing with an IDE or SATA drive as the "server" yielded very inconsistent results, since Windows XP sets up cache schemes to improve performance. Finally, we decided to try a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removed almost all overhead from the serving end. We also managed to turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" and our results were then consistent over many test runs.
We used 1GB of fast 2-2-2-5 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which measures 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive using our Windows based timing program. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates, therefore, mean better performance in this particular test.
The Epox board does not offer a Firewire option. The USB 2.0 performance is consistent with other ULi based controllers and continues to lag behind the NVIDIA nForce4 chipset solutions in throughput.
After looking at many options for Firewire and USB testing, we finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk would be a sensible way to look at USB and Firewire throughput.
Our first efforts at testing with an IDE or SATA drive as the "server" yielded very inconsistent results, since Windows XP sets up cache schemes to improve performance. Finally, we decided to try a RAM disk as our "server", since memory removed almost all overhead from the serving end. We also managed to turn off disk caching on the USB and Firewire side by setting up the drives for "quick disconnect" and our results were then consistent over many test runs.
We used 1GB of fast 2-2-2-5 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our standard file is the SPECviewPerf install file, which measures 432,533,504 bytes (412.4961MB). After copying this file to our RAM disk, we measured the time for writing from the RAM disk to our external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, or Firewire 800 drive using our Windows based timing program. The copy times in seconds were then converted into Megabits per second (Mb) to provide a convenient means of comparing throughput. Higher Rates, therefore, mean better performance in this particular test.
The Epox board does not offer a Firewire option. The USB 2.0 performance is consistent with other ULi based controllers and continues to lag behind the NVIDIA nForce4 chipset solutions in throughput.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
View All Comments
Palek - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
Gary,There is a spelling error in the last sentence of the 1st page:
"Let's find out how Epox's offering fairs against the competition."
The correct spelling is "fares" not "fairs".
Gary Key - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
I had corrected it on the final draft and somehow it still made it in. My fault for not catching it once the article went live last night. It is corrected now as are the ascending chart figures.Googer - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
Is epox part of Shuttle?http://local.google.com/local?q=Epox%20EP-9U1697-G...">http://local.google.com/local?q=Epox%20...utf-8&am...
Googer - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
The ULi M1695 is all about upgradeability and the ASrock implementation uses a 20pin PSU where as the Epox implementation needs a 24pin connection. Based on the benchmarks it also looks like you will need to purchase a PCI-e x1 gigabit controller.Speaking from experience, my biggest gripe on the ASrock M1695 is the BIOS is very quirky and can be very very slow to POST.
Epox is the king if you are an overclocker and overall performance is very impressive compaired to the ASrock ULi M1695.
Avalon - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
8Mb throughput? Are you sure that's not a mistake?The only comment on Epox's ethernet score was that it was not competitive...700Mb vs 8Mb...I'd say something is wrong, or a typo?
Palek - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
Yeah, I noticed that, too, then I found the missing "9" outside the graph area. The figure is correct, it's just the layout that is messed up.Gary Key - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
The actual number is 98.9Mb/s. Our graph engine has a small issue with variances that wide. It placed the 9 into the description field. I updated the text statement to reflect this issue. Thank you.Peter - Friday, March 17, 2006 - link
While you're updating, you might want to correct the research error that the RTL8201 is a "PCI based solution". It is not, it's just a PHY to the ULi chip's integrated 10/100 MAC.Oh, and when are you finally going to stop attributing memory performance to chipsets on AMD64?
Cygni - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
Might have to pick one of these up...Rock Hydra - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link
The Epox EP-9U1697 GLi displayed superb stability with 4 DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 2-2-2-7, but it required the command rate to be increased to 2T.