Asmedia 1061 PCIe 2x - Benchmark Failed !

[p1tcho0]

http://m.bestofmedia.com/sfp/images/design/noimg/no-profil-100x100.jpg


I bought this
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681...

I run this
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/ocz_...

I have this
http://imgur.com/tDaZLFS

 

[p1tcho0]

I have heard about SATA bottleneck what going on ...

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Thanks for having compiled the specs in your profile. Made this a breeze.

According to your board's specs, your PCI-e x1 slots (the ones you have the current addon card plugged into) are PCI-e 1.0, not 2.0 like the card needs.
The 1.0 has only 250 MB/s of maximum bandwith per lane (pci-e x1 slots have only one lane) for each direction (so 250 read and 250 write). So with overhead and stuff, it's normal that the SSD is capped at around 200 MB/s.

The 2.0 has around 500 MB/s of maximum bandwith per lane (again for each direction), which is going to run a SINGLE SSD perfectly fine.

Given your current setup, I suggest to plug that thing in your second PCI-e x16 slot (the one for the second graphic card), as that is a pci-e 2.0 slot. Will of course work only at PCI-e 2.0 x1 speeds (the maximum speed supported by the card), so it's ok for a single SSD, but not for 2 at the same time. For that I suggest to invest in a card that has a bigger PCI-e 2.0 interface, like x4 or more. This for example can keep happy 4 of such SSDs.
Placing a card in the other x16 slot does not seem to downgrade the other x16 slot (the one you have the graphics card) to x8 as is common with more modern motherboards.

 

[p1tcho0]

I am sorry, the card I bouht is 2x, And I don't have 4x Connector
The pcie card have only one ssd

 

[p1tcho0]

Thanks for having compiled the specs in your profile. Made this a breeze.Not updated..
Those stuff are not updated

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Update them. I need to know what motherboard you have and where did you plug the card into (what motherboard slot).

Also, the card you linked is x1, not x2.

 

[p1tcho0]

Done but, same think this board allow only 2x for maximum bandwidth
I already checked that before buying the adaptor !

So I see cant do anymore,
About marvell controller 9128 and intel are bad i have seen ...
Benchmark will give less than my post if I use integraded sata connector ( cristaldisk bench )

 

[p1tcho0]

Google Image Result for http://blog.hwbot.org/wp-content/asus_rampage3_small1.jpg

 

[bobafetthotmail]

These are the specs of your board. Yes, the board's own SATA ports are SATA II so it's normal that they are worse.

Note the part about "Expansion SLots"
4 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8 or quad x8)
1 x PCIe x4
1 x PCI

You see how the x16 slots are of PCIe 2.0 while the x4 slot is not (so is a 1.0)? That means the addon SATA III card works at half capacity (it is supposed to be used in a 2.0 slot not in a 1.0 slot, that has half the bandwith).

Since that motherboard states that can run two full x16 pcie 2.0 slots, and you have a single graphics card, I suggest to try placing that SATA card in one of such x16 slots (possibly the one closer to the graphics card) as that would double its bandwith. Then test again and see if it improves.

Btw, this tutorial allows you to scan and upload automatically your specs into your profile with our forum's own utility program. Please do so, as it is easier to help if we know how it is made.

 

[p1tcho0]

These are the specs of your board. Yes, the board's own SATA ports are SATA II so it's normal that they are worse.

Note the part about "Expansion SLots"
4 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8 or quad x8)
1 x PCIe x4
1 x PCI

You see how the x16 slots are of PCIe 2.0 while the x4 slot is not (so is a 1.0)? That means the addon SATA III card works at half capacity (it is supposed to be used in a 2.0 slot not in a 1.0 slot, that has half the bandwith).

Since that motherboard states that can run two full x16 pcie 2.0 slots, and you have a single graphics card, I suggest to try placing that SATA card in one of such x16 slots (possibly the one closer to the graphics card) as that would double its bandwith. Then test again and see if it improves.

Btw, this tutorial allows you to scan and upload automatically your specs into your profile with our forum's own utility program. Please do so, as it is easier to help if we know how it is made.

I have Rampage 3 formula not extreme !

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/RAMPAGE_III_FORMULA/

 

[p1tcho0]

These are the specs of your board. Yes, the board's own SATA ports are SATA II so it's normal that they are worse.

Note the part about "Expansion SLots"
4 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8 or quad x8)
1 x PCIe x4
1 x PCI

You see how the x16 slots are of PCIe 2.0 while the x4 slot is not (so is a 1.0)? That means the addon SATA III card works at half capacity (it is supposed to be used in a 2.0 slot not in a 1.0 slot, that has half the bandwith).

Since that motherboard states that can run two full x16 pcie 2.0 slots, and you have a single graphics card, I suggest to try placing that SATA card in one of such x16 slots (possibly the one closer to the graphics card) as that would double its bandwith. Then test again and see if it improves.

Btw, this tutorial allows you to scan and upload automatically your specs into your profile with our forum's own utility program. Please do so, as it is easier to help if we know how it is made.

<

Newegg.ca - SYBA SY-PEX40039 PCI-Express 2.0 SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card

Compliant with PCI-Express Specification V2.0 and Backward Compatible with PCI-Express 1.x

 

[p1tcho0]

These are the specs of your board. Yes, the board's own SATA ports are SATA II so it's normal that they are worse.

Note the part about "Expansion SLots"
4 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8 or quad x8)
1 x PCIe x4
1 x PCI

You see how the x16 slots are of PCIe 2.0 while the x4 slot is not (so is a 1.0)? That means the addon SATA III card works at half capacity (it is supposed to be used in a 2.0 slot not in a 1.0 slot, that has half the bandwith).

Since that motherboard states that can run two full x16 pcie 2.0 slots, and you have a single graphics card, I suggest to try placing that SATA card in one of such x16 slots (possibly the one closer to the graphics card) as that would double its bandwith. Then test again and see if it improves.

Btw, this tutorial allows you to scan and upload automatically your specs into your profile with our forum's own utility program. Please do so, as it is easier to help if we know how it is made.

2 x PCIe x1
-.-
I read fast I think !

Possible to adapte 1x to 2x

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Ok, ok, my mistake.

This is your board's relevant part
3 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8)
2 x PCIe x1
1 x PCI

The 2 PCIe x1 are 1.0. So I'm still right.

Newegg.ca - SYBA SY-PEX40039 PCI-Express 2.0 SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card

Compliant with PCI-Express Specification V2.0 and Backward Compatible with PCI-Express 1.x

I think you are a bit confused between PCIe interface lenght (the number of lanes) and PCIe version.
The card linked has a x1 PCIe interface. x1 means that the interface length is short, and there is only one PCIe "lane" (one for up and one for down transfers).

The PCIe version (the 1.0 and 2.0) determines the speed of each of such "lanes". A 1.0 PCIe lane gives you at max 250 mb/s up AND down per lane. A 2.0 PCIe lane gives you 500 MB/s up and down per lane. A 3.0 PCIe gives you 1 GB/s up and down per lane (if both card and slot are PCIe 3.0).

This means that a PCIe 2.0 x1 card is equivalent in bandwith to a PCIe 1.0 x2 card, but the 1.0 card needs twice as much lanes.

"Backwards compatible" means that a PCIe 2.0 card can run at PCIe 1.0 speed if it is placed in a 1.0 slot (and it's actually logic, the faster interface is bottlenecked by the slower one).
So each of its 2.0 lanes will work at half bandwidth, and it will be as if you bought a PCIe 1.0 card.

To get more bandwidth and get decent score in that benchmark you must place that card in a PCIe 2.0 slot (as you cannot really do anything else with the x1 slots on your mobo as they are too slow for a SSD), which in your board is one of the big x16 ones for additional graphic cards. This way even if the card will still have only one lane (as the card is still x1) each lane has 500 MB/s which will be enough to run the SSD.

It will waste 15 lanes, but at least the only lane it uses will be a PCIe 2.0 lane, so you get the full 500 MB/s you so desperately need for your SSD.

Can you please trust me a little and try it? The benchmark will prove me right.

 

[p1tcho0]

Ok, ok, my mistake.

This is your board's relevant part
3 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8)
2 x PCIe x1
1 x PCI

I will answer later, some training at my job I read fast
My fault the link I sent with the mobo said Rampage Extreme
I took fastely the picture.

So if I understand rightly, you asking to me to use a 16x with a 1x lane device?
I understand the fact of pci 2.0 and lane 1x 2x
I think I just read fast and had to find a solution when I bought the adaptor.
OR maybe read wrong spec...
So my fault lol
I will bench my 6gb sata from marvell even Ive seen many trouble from this controller.
Will se what happen but at this time I cant do for the moment.
I have to re-read what you said
Have to go

 

[bobafetthotmail]

So if I understand rightly, you asking to me to use a 16x with a 1x lane device?

Yes, because it's the only way to have it run at 2.0 speeds with that board.

I will bench my 6gb sata from marvell even Ive seen many trouble from this controller.

From the specs you linked, they say that drives connected to that controller can't be used for boot drives.

Marvell® PCIe 9128 controller : *1

(and quite a bit below, last line under Note)

*1: These SATA ports are for data hard drives only. ATAPI devices are not supported.

And in general, that controller seems to be crap.

 

[p1tcho0]

ATA Packet Interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*1: These SATA ports are for data hard drives only. ATAPI devices are not supported.

And in general, that controller seems to be crap.

--
ATA Packet Interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--
ATAPI devices are also "speaking ATA", as the ATA physical interface and protocol are still being used to send the packets. On the other hand, ATA hard drives and solid state drives do not use ATAPI.

ATAPI devices include CD-ROM and DVD-ROM drives, tape drives, and large-capacity floppy drives such as the Zip drive and SuperDisk drive.

 

[p1tcho0]

Ok, ok, my mistake.

This is your board's relevant part
3 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (dual x16 or x16, x8, x8)
2 x PCIe x1
1 x PCI

The 2 PCIe x1 are 1.0. So I'm still right.

Newegg.ca - SYBA SY-PEX40039 PCI-Express 2.0 SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card

Compliant with PCI-Express Specification V2.0 and Backward Compatible with PCI-Express 1.x

I think you are a bit confused between PCIe interface lenght (the number of lanes) and PCIe version.
The card linked has a x1 PCIe interface. x1 means that the interface length is short, and there is only one PCIe "lane" (one for up and one for down transfers).

The PCIe version (the 1.0 and 2.0) determines the speed of each of such "lanes". A 1.0 PCIe lane gives you at max 250 mb/s up AND down per lane. A 2.0 PCIe lane gives you 500 MB/s up and down per lane. A 3.0 PCIe gives you 1 GB/s up and down per lane (if both card and slot are PCIe 3.0).

This means that a PCIe 2.0 x1 card is equivalent in bandwith to a PCIe 1.0 x2 card, but the 1.0 card needs twice as much lanes.

"Backwards compatible" means that a PCIe 2.0 card can run at PCIe 1.0 speed if it is placed in a 1.0 slot (and it's actually logic, the faster interface is bottlenecked by the slower one).
So each of its 2.0 lanes will work at half bandwidth, and it will be as if you bought a PCIe 1.0 card.

To get more bandwidth and get decent score in that benchmark you must place that card in a PCIe 2.0 slot (as you cannot really do anything else with the x1 slots on your mobo as they are too slow for a SSD), which in your board is one of the big x16 ones for additional graphic cards. This way even if the card will still have only one lane (as the card is still x1) each lane has 500 MB/s which will be enough to run the SSD.

It will waste 15 lanes, but at least the only lane it uses will be a PCIe 2.0 lane, so you get the full 500 MB/s you so desperately need for your SSD.

Can you please trust me a little and try it? The benchmark will prove me right.

How willl be safe the setup a card 1x lane in a 16 x lane -.-

 

[bobafetthotmail]

ATA Packet Interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*1: These SATA ports are for data hard drives only. ATAPI devices are not supported.
ATA hard drives and solid state drives do not use ATAPI.

Yes, but the sentence before the one for ATAPI says that the port supports such drives ONLY if they are data drives. Not system drives.
There is noting stopping you from trying to do it, but if the spec sheet of your board says it's not supported, then it's likely not going to work.

How willl be safe the setup a card 1x lane in a 16 x lane -.-

Your distrust is hurting my feelings. No seriously, I know what I'm saying. PCIe is designed to be smart enough enough for that to work without any issue.

From wikipedia article about pci-e please see the bolded parts:

A connection between any two PCIe devices is known as a link, and is built up from a collection of one or more lanes. All devices must minimally support single-lane (×1) link. Devices may optionally support wider links composed of 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 32 lanes. This allows for very good compatibility in two ways:

• A PCIe card physically fits (and works correctly) in any slot that is at least as large as it is (e.g., an ×1 sized card will work in any sized slot);
• A slot of a large physical size (e.g., ×16) can be wired electrically with fewer lanes (e.g., ×1, ×4, ×8, or ×12) as long as it provides the ground connections required by the larger physical slot size.

In both cases, PCIe negotiates the highest mutually supported number of lanes. Many graphics cards, motherboards and bios versions are verified to support ×1, ×4, ×8 and ×16 connectivity on the same connection.

And googling Will a x1 pcie fit in a x16 slot? turns tons of positive answers, even people that ran x16 graphic cards on x1 or x4 Pci-e slots and made a video about it (slight slot modification).
Or people that run 4 cards each from a x1 slot for bit-mining (using the graphic cards as badass calculators to do very hard math, their game performance would totally suck with a x1 slot)

 

[p1tcho0]

ATA Packet Interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*1: These SATA ports are for data hard drives only. ATAPI devices are not supported.
ATA hard drives and solid state drives do not use ATAPI.

Yes, but the sentence before the one for ATAPI says that the port supports such drives ONLY if they are data drives. Not system drives.
There is noting stopping you from trying to do it, but if the spec sheet of your board says it's not supported, then it's likely not going to work.

How willl be safe the setup a card 1x lane in a 16 x lane -.-

Your distrust is hurting my feelings. No seriously, I know what I'm saying. PCIe is designed to be smart enough enough for that to work without any issue.

From wikipedia article about pci-e please see the bolded parts:

A connection between any two PCIe devices is known as a link, and is built up from a collection of one or more lanes. All devices must minimally support single-lane (×1) link. Devices may optionally support wider links composed of 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 32 lanes. This allows for very good compatibility in two ways:

• A PCIe card physically fits (and works correctly) in any slot that is at least as large as it is (e.g., an ×1 sized card will work in any sized slot);
• A slot of a large physical size (e.g., ×16) can be wired electrically with fewer lanes (e.g., ×1, ×4, ×8, or ×12) as long as it provides the ground connections required by the larger physical slot size.

In both cases, PCIe negotiates the highest mutually supported number of lanes. Many graphics cards, motherboards and bios versions are verified to support ×1, ×4, ×8 and ×16 connectivity on the same connection.

And googling Will a x1 pcie fit in a x16 slot? turns tons of positive answers, even people that ran x16 graphic cards on x1 or x4 Pci-e slots and made a video about it (slight slot modification).
Or people that run 4 cards each from a x1 slot for bit-mining (using the graphic cards as badass calculators to do very hard math, their game performance would totally suck with a x1 slot)

Maybe positive and how dangerous will be the setup !

 

[bobafetthotmail]

Did you read the wikipedia article?
No danger at all.
PCI-e is designed to be able to do that without issues.