Asrock Fatal1ty X99X Killer SSD SSATA_? Issue |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |
DevillEars
Newbie Joined: 09 Jul 2015 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
Hi,
I'm the "other poster with X99X Killer SATA challenges"... Opening Intel's X99 chipset webpage shows the following from the block diagram: a) CPU to Discrete Graphics: "Up to 40 lanes" (only 28 lanes for Core i7-5820K) b) X99 to PICe 2.0: Up to 5Gb/s x1 bi-directional c) X99 to 10 xSATA 3.0 Ports: Up to 6Gb/s (asterisk note states "all SATA ports capable of 6Gb/s") NOTE THE USAGE OF THE WORDS "UP TO" IN THE SPECS... Under "Features and Benefits" Intel's site contradicts the above as follows: Feature: Serial ATA (SATA) 6 Gb/s Benefit: Next generation high-speed storage interface supporting up tp 6Gb/s transfer rates with up to six SATA ports (Note reference 6) Note 6: Actual number of ports available may vary by system configuration. Please consult your system vendor for more information. This last Note 6 comment implies that ports 7-10 not offered as standard by Intel but implemented by mobo manufacturer... Intel's website is not an easy site from which to extract detail, so checked out Wikipedia which has the following to say regarding SATA implementation in the X99 chipset:
So, if Wikipedia entry can be believed, Intel HAVE implemented two SATA controllers within the X99 chipset, one - with 6 ports - being RAID capable; the other - with 4 ports - lacking support for RAID; but both groups offering AHCI mode at 6gb/s per port. Unfortunately, this does not come anywhere near explaining the problems we're experiencing with bandwidth when using the second 4-port S-SATA controller... Dave
|
|
If music be the love of food, eat on
|
|
Xaltar
Moderator Group Joined: 16 May 2015 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 24518 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks for the info Dave, that is very useful to know.
|
|
odiebugs
Newbie Joined: 07 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 193 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks Dave:
Glad you popped over into this thread and posted this info, real nice of you. |
|
asrocking
|
|
DevillEars
Newbie Joined: 09 Jul 2015 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
One thought...
The X99 capabilities need to be considered in conjunction with the partnering CPU: Scenario 1: X99 + Core i7-5820K (limitation of only 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes) Scenario 2: X99 + Core i7-59xxK (support for 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes) There may well be some - unpublished - constraints with regard to X99 capabilities when used with the 28-lane i7-5820K. The constraint may well lie in the DMI interface between CPU and X99 and dictated by Intel's CPU implementation... Guessing time...
|
|
If music be the love of food, eat on
|
|
DevillEars
Newbie Joined: 09 Jul 2015 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Some further "web-digging" elicited the following from an Intel Haswell-E review by AnandTech:
If the reviewer at AnandTech is correct, this would explain the problems experienced with SSD usage on these ports as the hub will, effectively, function as a "multiplexer" to extend the number of connector ports while keeping the interface lane-count constant. Dividing the fixed lane bandwidth by more connector ports will see bandwidth degradation - particularly when data is being moved between multiple drives attached to the same SATA hub. Also, contention may also be the reason for some of the SSD tests failing due to timing issues? My suggestion to the OP: If you want to run your disks as explained, ignore the S_SATA ports and install an Intel 8-port 8x PCIe 3.0 RAID card which will provide the full bandwidth capability of a PCIe 3.0 lane for each port (The more I think about this, the more convinced I become that it is the solution for me as well...) Dave
Edited by DevillEars - 24 Jul 2015 at 12:21am |
|
If music be the love of food, eat on
|
|
parsec
Moderator Group Joined: 04 May 2015 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 4996 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll need to check the datasheet of the X99 chipset to learn how the four secondary (my terminology) SATA III ports are implemented.
Intel has always provisioned the PCIe lanes used for the SATA ports from those provided by the board's chipset. Those have always been PCIe 2.0 lanes. The PCIe 3.0 lanes are used exclusively for the video card slots, and now for PCIe SSDs. I'll be testing the SSATA ports on a SSD to check the performance, and will report back soon. |
|
odiebugs
Newbie Joined: 07 Jul 2015 Status: Offline Points: 193 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Even though the chipset has the 10 sata , from what I see, these four posts have the same bandwidth as the 6 intel with RAID.
Honestly I can't figure if the 28 lanes were maxed out, if this has any affect on the 2.0 on the chip to become burdened. I also noticed that Intel has removed the Enterprise RAID from the X99 and dosn't have ROM switch like the X79 had. Now there's only RST and no RSTe. Not sure if I can find if the UEFI has injected another AHCI in it for the other ports or if because there's still RAID on the six if the UEFI has a separate software firmware. It's taking the X79 and X99 UEFI and seeing the changes to the UEFI. So it could be added code in the original one for the extra four. There are massive changes to the UEFI files inside the X99, I can't even find the Sata Driver or the CMScore. I wonder if Parsec can use the RST AHCI driver to switch over the four posts to show as storage devices to see what devise ID they have or what they have for it with windows driver.
Edited by odiebugs - 24 Jul 2015 at 1:40am |
|
asrocking
|
|
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |