Bad USB/eSATA performance on Intel Chipsets?

I'm not getting good data transfers from computers to an external drive with an Intel chipsets. These have included notebooks and desktops - so it doesn't seem to be a defect of a specific computer.

Here are my test results from not one, but TWO Intel Core2 Quad systems. Its been bothering me for a while. Is it a bad external drive? A cable? A computer. Here is a 3GB test example:

3Gb test (3.2) / 11,000 files - Same Drive, two different computers, same files.

PC A = 6m 59s Saved file = 3.253.5~GB : 10,991 files
PC B = 5m 56s Saved file = 3.253.4~GB : 10,857 files or 20 seconds Faster than C2Q per GB. Its only a minute slower for 3GB.

20 seconds doesn't seem like a lot per GB... but here's the problem, try backing up 200GB worth of data and you see transfer times like this from a PC that has been rebuilt with new mobo/CPU/RAM/HD - same data:

06-2008 = 185.2GB 2h 18m - 10,173 files
08-2008 = 185.4GB 4h 54m - 10,178 files (Almost an extra 3 hours!)

I'd admit that the Backup from 6-2008 is from the e-SATA interface... as eSATA on the new computer is no faster thanUSB. Using USB on the old computer, the backup time was 3h 14m... still about 2hours faster!!

The 2nd set of numbers, is a Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz. XP-Pro SP3 / 4GB RAM and 1TB Maxtor drives using Gigabyte P35 Intel chipset board. I took the exact drive and did the 3-GB TEST on an AMD-6000 (3.0Ghz) dual core, 2GB RAM, XP-MCE SP2. So a slower computer in CPU & HDs was able to move data faster. I noticed this not-so-good performance when I also did transfers with Core2Duo notebooks... not any different. Okay, a bit slower.

Overall.. 2.5hrs vs 5 hrs for transfer performances is NOT impressive. Wastes a lot of time and is more wear and tear on the drives.

Okay... I decide to compare a different external USB drive on my own computers. Between my computer and my sons.

- Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 2.4 & 3.0Ghz, 2GB RAM, XP SP2 MCE, CPU temps under normal conditions = 37~39c (2.4 or 3.0). Gigabyte P35 board New parts.

- AMD64 3300 (1.8Ghz) single core CPU, 1GB DDR1 RAM, XP SP2 Home. CPU temps are a bit high (45c) About to install a new fan in a day or so. 3+ year old computer.


4m 48s = AMD64 3300 (1.8Ghz) with 1GB (USB) : File size = 4,628.9GB / 4,145 files
8m 00s = Core2Q 6600 (2.4Ghz) with 2GB (USB) : File size = 4,629.2GB / 4,145 files
7m 47s = Core2Q 6600 (3.0Ghz) with 2GB (USB) : File size = 4,629.2GB / 4,145 files

Okay.. a 3year old PC that is easily slower than my own - can still move data faster with its 3~4year old AMD chipset that is almost twice as fast! Not impressive for rather current tech from Intel.

What is going on?!

 

Anyone? Win2kpro (Especially with your intel logo.. heheh)?

Is there some setting wrong? I found it especially odd that the performance is just as slow with eSATA...

 

I don't quite understand your figures. Where are you storing 4,628.9GB?

I just did a small test transfer from My Documents to a 120GB WD USB External. 295MB, 310,018,029 bytes, 301 files, 112 folders on this old machine with an Intel D875PBZ board, 3.0gHZ. P4 Northwood, 1GB PC3200 memory and the transfer took 21 sec.

When I get near one of the Q6600's I just delivered I will see how it compares to the Q6600 2.4gHZ. you have listed.

 

Like I said, its about 20secs per GB... so to get a better idea, use a larger set of data files... 3~5GB.

Storing? I'm confused. For testing, I selected a directory with about 5GB worth of data and copied it to the external drive and timed it. Then copied it onto another computer and than back to the backup drive again and timed it.

Like I just did a little quickie test. 223mb (234,~bytes) with 333 files & 58 folders.
AMD 3300 > USB drive = 27.1sec.
USB drive > Q6600 = 14.0sec (C: Drive partition)
Q6600 > USB drive = 10.9sec Hmmmm... (C: Drive partition)
Q6600 > USB drive = 10.9sec from Last partition of a 500GB drive (last 80GB)

Okay, I just copied a folder with from the last parition to the USB drive. 4.76GB / 10,972 files and 792 folders. Time:
Q6600 > USB drive = 05m 45s
A lot better than 8 minutes. But this is raw/standard file copy. Next test is with Backup software, same data = 5m 50seconds. not bad, about 50 seconds slower but about 500 more data and double the amount of files.

This is VERY ODD in that this is happening. I don't see or know what is different. UGh.