Is AHCI worth it? XPS410 / 9200 running two non-raid drives - XP reload

There is some performance boost with AHCI enabled. Hence the Advanced part of the host controller.Mostly thought it is to allow for the setting up of Raid configurations..

In order for you to enable it you will need to set your Sata mode to Raid on and then load the SATA driver at the F6 prompt or have them slipstreamed into the install disk.

Thanks Dave - appreciate your answer.

In your experience, is the performance boost noticeable? 

The computer isn't used for gaming or video editing.  Photo editing using PS Elements is about as exciting as it gets.

HERE is and article with some good info to help you decide.

Thanks Dave - the link doesn't work though.

 Thanks to both of you for your help - I suspect you're right, and the gain in performance may not be substantial enough to justify reinstalling.

Thanks!

Further info in case someone else is interested in the same question:

I installed the Western Digital Caviar Black drive running as SATA-2 ok, ran checkdisk to clean up some bad sectors, and then ran HD Tune, got the following results:

Transfer rate 52-136 MB/s

Mean transfer rate 105.3 MB/s

Burst rate 151.4 MB/s

CPU Usage 2.9%

(The drive specs say the drive is capable of sustained host-to-drive rate of 126MB/s, so the results above look pretty satisfactory.)

The old Samsung drive originally installed on the Dell 9200, running as a single SATA-1 disk under the RAID controller to take advantage of AHCI got these results:

Transfer rate 37-75 MB/s

Mean transfer rate 61.8 MB/s

Burst rate 119.7 MB/s

CPU usage 7%.

I know this isn't a direct comparision of AHCI vs no AHCI, but the figures do indicate that using the non-RAID controller results in very satisfactory drive performance.

Thanks for tthe detailed info, it's a nice setup you've got there.  Mine isn't a gaming setup, as you can tell from the specs - Eve Online is about as far as I get with gaming.  It's interesting the results you had with the system, and the difference you noticed.

I have now got some benchmark figures from HD Tune for a direct comparison using the same drive on the same computer setup, the only difference being the controller set to RAID ON, or to RAID AUTODETECT/AHCI:

1:  The old Samsung drive originally installed on the Dell 9200, running as a single SATA-2 disk under the RAID controller to take advantage of AHCI got these results:

Transfer rate 37-75 MB/s

Mean transfer rate 61.8 MB/s

Burst rate 119.7 MB/s

CPU usage 7%.

2.  The same drive installed on the same computer, running as a single SATA-2 disk under the SATA controller, no AHCI:

Transfer rate 37.9-75.7 MB/s

Mean transfer rate 61.6 MB/s

Burst rate 146.8 MB/s

CP Usage 2%.

Interesting figures, looks like similar transfer rates, but higher burst rates and lower CPU usage under the SATA controller, at least for this drive.

Hey again,

Thanks for posting your benchmarks, I think this thread will very helpful to anyone who is looking for the same answers that we were.

So, you did go ahead and reinstall with RAID ON?

You should think about Windows 7. it really made a ageing XPS 410 have new life! Install is an absolute breeze. I DID NOT HAVE TO FIND A SINGLE DRIVER FOR ANYTHING IN MY SYSTEM. I didn't have to even use the CDs that came with add in hardware. Windows just knew what it was and installed the drivers.but not to get off the subject.

I did a benchmark of my system too today just to cure my curiosity and to give comparable results to this thread Using HD Tune also.

 Dell XPS 410 with Western Digital Caviar Black HDD. running as a single SATA-2 disk under the RAID controller to take advantage of AHCI, (RAID ON)  I got these results

Transfer rate 39-76 MB/s

Mean transfer rate 63.3 MB/s

Burst rate 152.5 MB/s

CPU usage 4%

The same drive installed on the same computer, running as a single SATA-2 disk under the SATA controller, no AHCI  (RAID AUTODETECT)

Transfer rate 37.5-75.6 MB/s

Mean transfer rate 61.2 MB/s

Burst rate 136.2 MB/s

CP Usage 2%.

My results are a little different than yours but not much. it looks like system configuration makes a difference as much as the type of HDD used in a system.

To reiterate, Burst rate don't really have substantial effects on normal computer usage but a gamer will tell you that Burst rate and CPU usage are very important in a gaming environment.  Maybe that is why I got a "noticeable to the eye" change in speed under a heavy load as my hardware is different than yours. Can I ask how much memory do you have installed in your system? sorry I see that we have the same exact memory after taking another glance at your system specs.

Hi again -

Thanks for posting those, it's really helpful to be able to compare results for the drive with different controllers in 2 different setups - the pattern is definitely similar within slightly different results - tends to suggest, as you say, that unless you're after a good burst speed, RAID ON for a non-raid drive doesn't seem to confer a significant advantage, and in fact uses more CPU.

I ended up using a non-RAID installation, largely because it's simpler in concept and in practice, at least when having to load XP.

I agree, Windows 7 would be nice, but it's not on the financial horizon atm.  Also, having reinstalled and reconfigured all my software, I'm not sure I can face doing it all again!

Hi -

Thanks for posting your results, interesting to see that the pattern is the same as it was on my setup - no real advantage unless you're looking for burst speed, and at least double the CPU consumption using the raid on option.

I've gone with the raid autodetect/ata option since it's simpler in concept and since I don't have to manually sort out drivers when loading XP.

As you say, Windows 7 would be nice, but it's a bit off the financial horizon at the moment, esp since I'd have to replace some elderly software..

Thanks again