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.

USB Performance

Possibly the most striking finding in our Firewire and USB throughput tests is the continued performance of an external hard drive connected to Firewire 800. Our benchmarks show Firewire 800 is up to 46% faster than a drive connected to the more common Firewire 400, and about 29% faster than USB 2.0.

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.

Disk Controller Performance Ethernet Performance
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • Spoelie - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Another very small quirk: page 7 3rd graph shows latency - lower is better - but the boards are still ordered like higher is better..
  • Spoelie - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    hmm and apparantly all the audio utilization graphs as well :) And since we're still at it, since for storage performance differs only from southbridge to southbridge and not from board to board, it might ease up those graphs to just display one representative for each + the board in review.
  • Rock Hydra - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Er sorry, forgot to mention you said DDR2.
  • Googer - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Here is another just released review on this same motherboard:

    http://www.ocworkbench.com/ocwbcgi/newspro/viewnew...">http://www.ocworkbench.com/ocwbcgi/newspro/viewnew...,
  • Gary Key - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Sorry about that, corrected. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now