Firewire and USB Performance

It is really difficult to put together a simple, repeatable, and consistent test to measure USB and Firewire Performance. Since our goal was to make this a standard part of motherboard testing, we needed a benchmark that was reasonably simple to run that would also provide consistent results on the same test bed. We finally determined that an external USB 2.0, Firewire 400, and Firewire 800 hard disk might 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 just 1GB of fast 2-2-2 system memory set up as a 450MB RAM disk and 550MB of system memory. Our stock file was the SPECviewPerf install file, which is 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 or Firewire 400 or Firewire 800 drive using a Windows timing program written for AnandTech by our own Jason Clark. 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.

Firewire, USB & Storage Performance


Sapphire PURE Innovation uses the commonly available and good-performing VIA Firewire 400 chip. Firewire 800 is 40 to 55% faster than a drive connected to Firewire 400, but it is still rare to find Firewire 800 integrated into motherboards.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in our testing was the poor performance of USB 2.0 on the Sapphire ATI. ATI had promised improvement in USB performance in the SB450 compared to the earlier SB400, but we could see little improvement in our USB 2.0 tests. ATI has responded that our USB 2.0 tests measure sustained throughput, which is relevant in USB operations only with applications like the USB 2.0 hard drive that we use for this test. ATI states that "burst" USB 2.0 throughput has been improved in the SB450 to near the same levels of competitive USB 2.0 peak performance. Perhaps even more important, ATI say that they are aware of the issues with USB 2.0 performance and these will be fully corrected - sustained and peak performance - in the SB600 south bridge.

Since our ramdisk/apptimer File Copy is measuring sustained throughput, we also compared performance of ATI IDE/SATA/Sil SATA2 using this same test procedure. The performance of ATI IDE remains excellent, but SATA and SATA 2 performance are very competitive, yet not standout as in the iPeak storage benchmarks of the same controllers. This lends some credibility to ATI's comments that their USB 2.0 performance is competitive when burst performance is measured.

Disk Controller Performance Ethernet Performance
Comments Locked

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • RobFDB - Saturday, July 30, 2005 - link

    Guess you missed where i said "(with the exception of MSI)". Learn to read mate before you go posting.
  • RobFDB - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    ATI and Sapphire should be congratulated for bringing the AC880 to AMD users. We had it good with Soundstorm but since then onboard audio as gone back several steps (with the exception of MSI). Its good that AMD users are being given the option to have quality onboard audio.
  • bob661 - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    This what impresses me the most about these boards is this codec support. I still won't buy an ATI chipset until the third or fourth version comes out (you guys can test it for me) but impressive features and performance nonetheless.
  • jab98 - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    *codec
  • erwos - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    "[AMD] Enthusiast" is written with a capital E in the article, and it should not be, since it's not a proper noun. Please fix this error, because it looks grossly unprofessional to anyone with a reasonable command of the written word.
  • RobFDB - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    Really though, get over it. It doesnt matter in the slightest if we're being honest here. Anyway back to more important matters.

    I'm really happy that ATI have managed to bring a top performing board aimed at enthusiasts to market. I was also extremely impressed to see Sapphire implement 4v for the RAM. One issue that i'd like to see investigated is wether the cold boot issue that affects DFI NF4 boards using OCZ VX mem @ high voltages affects the Sapphire board too. Aside from that this is a very impressive showing from ATI. One last thing. I have a x850XT PE and i'm not sure if that can be used as a slave card when ATI bring out the R520. If so that would make a very attractive upgrade.
  • rjm55 - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    The X850XT PE works fine as a slave with the X850 Master Card. In demos at Computex, ATI was showing an X850 Master with an X850XT PE slave.
  • Jojo7 - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    This isn't exactly true. Ati distributed a special driver that SIMULATED crossfire. The actual cards were really just 2 identical x850xtpe's. Though, one probably had an altered bios to simulate a master card.

    Read it for yourself: http://anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx?bid=231">http://anandtech.com/weblog/default.aspx?bid=231
  • dlamblin - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    Did I miss the mention in the article? Is this an ATX or an mATX board. I'm guessing the former, but it wouldn't be out of place to list the fact along side the rest.
  • erwos - Friday, July 29, 2005 - link

    It's ATX. If it has more than four slots, it's too big to fit the mATX standard.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now