Jump to content

Windows XP: new Z68/Z77 rig in 2017


Tomcat76

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dencorso said:

I've already corrected that statement. It's SATA that uses 10 bits per byte not USB.
Anyway, I have an OCZ-Vertex3 attached to one of the SATA III ports of the P8Z68-V LX and it can actually sustain sequential reads of 470 MB/s across several 2GiB files. So the Z68 and the onboard bus are able to sustain at least that much easily.

That's too small a file to get a good sustained estimate.  If USB 3 speeds are truly 500MBps then you want to have at least 1TB of data to do the test and confirm.  It's just like copying a 1KB file on USB 2.0.  It might look instant like nothing happened.  Try again with 1MB same result.  Go to 1GB then you see some time elapsed.  But go to 1TB of data you can measure the actual time and do a real calculation avoiding any buffering or caching that might influence the result.  If I redo a copy of 1GB of data from external hard drive to Ramdrive sometimes the second copy is much faster or almost instant.  So until a large enough transfer can be done the results can't be conclusive.  Even on Vista 64-bit if I transfer some small 1GB file it gives an exaggerated MB/s which I know isn't true.  When I transfer a 100GB the speed will drop around 10 minutes in from the peak.  That's why I still recommend 1TB of actual data from a USB drive to Ramdrive or 1TB SSD via USB 3.0 adapter to Ramdrive for the fastest possible result.  The Ramdrive would have neglible delay so that's why as a destination it's the best way to get the highest score/time.  You could do a 1TB SSD via USB 3.0 adapter to another 1TB SSD via USB 3.0 adapter but it will be slower for sure but still the fastest possible speeds no one would normally get between two USB 3.0 hard drives.

 

Another test I just thought of is I have a few of those USB 3.0 RAID enclosures.

If I sandwich (2) 1TB SSD to get 2TB in RAID via USB 3.0 and copy 2TB to another identical (2) 1TB SSD RAID via USB 3.0 and do a file transfer this should saturate the bandwidth even further.

So until prices for 1TB SSDs come down you can get 4 of these with two USB 3.0 RAID adapters this test will probably be one way to attain peak USB 3.0 speeds without a 1TB Ramdrive.

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites


If I can transfer my compressed spanned backup images (set to 2GiB to be easily moved from CDFS to FAT-32 to wherever) fast enough, I'm satisfied. If I had any 1TB sized file, it would be a big PITA to handle. And most living human beings also do not have or use such ginormous files. Let's keep to real-world conditions.

BTW: I really doubt you've ever got more than 35 MB/s on a USB 2.0 port of any maker, with any board, any OS and whatever storage device, in real-world conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2017 at 2:47 AM, dencorso said:

If I can transfer my compressed spanned backup images (set to 2GiB to be easily moved from CDFS to FAT-32 to wherever) fast enough, I'm satisfied. If I had any 1TB sized file, it would be a big PITA to handle. And most living human beings also do not have or use such ginormous files. Let's keep to real-world conditions.

BTW: I really doubt You've ever got more than 35 MB/s on a USB 2.0 port of any maker, with any board, any OS and whatever storage device, in real world conditions.

I'm not talking about a 1TB single file.  It would be a nightmare to split something up that big.  Just to give you an idea 8GB is roughly the size of 1 hour of HD footage recording off the TV signal so 200GB would be a day's worth on one channel non stop.  I meant copying files 8GB or larger files but preferably 50GB or 100GB files would be better because as soon as you switch to start copying another file it could drop the sustained transfer rate and then you have another false reading.  You'd time 1000GB of files being transferred and hopefully no small 1KB-1GB files but some good sizes are 50GB like a Blu-ray.  So 20 50GB files would be a good test.  In the case of using a stop watch it won't matter what false reading you get from Windows since you can calculate the actual time to transfer 1TB and divide 1,000,000/seconds elapsed to get your true MBps.

Regarding "ginormous" files.  Well a few times because I started a recording manually and had to leave town for a day or two while it keeps recording non stop and so there's been a few times where the files have grown to over 300 GB when I returned.  :crazy:  That was before I started using a good 3rd party scheduling program so I didn't have to be there to start and stop the recording.  But I wouldn't consider 300GB out of the ordinary and a rare occurrence.  People doing film editing probably are dealing with these large files on 4K resolution so if it's 4 times the size of 1080P I can imagine a 1TB dump for 24 hours recording possible in the distant future.  So far it took many decades before 480P got upgraded to 1080I so I don't think that is going to happen any time soon but who knows in 2 decades.  Are you getting 1080i channels in your region or is it still 480P?

I'm suggesting a USB 2.0 transfer rate range that doesn't mean it's "actual" sustained.  Like I said XP or any OS while probably lie but when you first rip a Blu-ray from a SATA internal Blu-ray drive I've seen it go pretty high in the first few seconds of the first minute showing a 60MBps speed burst and then drop down slowly and stabilize.  This is why I am telling you don't trust short data bursts for a conclusion.  Stabilization on USB 2.0 speeds hover around 20-25MB/s and if it continues undisturbed on a single file (meaning it doesn't switch to another file to copy) it can go up to the early 30MB/s range at peak.  The old 1TB transfer and a stop watch with good hand eye coordination sometimes is the best method and then do the calculations post.

I also don't consider "read" speeds that significant because you can only write as fast as it allows so that's why when you have fast "read" speeds it's because it's cheating through buffering of some kind and gives you the false overhyped speed result.  Reading from a source to writing to another is the only accurate reading I trust.  Will it do you any good if you can read faster than you can write?  I think USB 2.0 read speeds are plenty fast already for most things like Blu-ray 1080P.  But transfering TBs of data around you want fast "write" speeds.  The fast "read" speeds might help when dumping from a USB 3.0 hard drive to a Ramdrive like I said since the Ramdrive can handle writing probably at the same speed as reading it.  A 32GB/64GB Ramdrive will get filled up way too fast and I would consider 1TB a substantial enough amount of data to transfer to get a more accurate result.

 

On 10/3/2017 at 1:27 AM, Dibya said:

98SE your board seems to be awesome.  Should  I wait for i7 9700k? I have sold my kabylake build to one guy . I have some money in hand . I have kept it with my dad as i may lose it . I am waiting.  I have some xp compatible gfx card lying around. 

I reread what you wrote Dibya, weren't you waiting on the SkyLake MB from the repair shop?  If you sold the KL and no SkyLake and now have the money then yes get the AsRock Z370 Taichi and i7-8700K when you can find it.  The i7-9700K I think will be the same 6C/12T but a little faster.  I don't think they will release 8C/16T till Z770/Z870 or Z970/Z1070 and maybe they will have PCIe 4.0, USB 4.0 and 128GB/256GB Max so a big update in 7nm.  (Hopes)

August 5, 2015

SkyLake i7-6700K - Passmark 11108

 

January 2017

Kaby Lake i7-7700K - Passmark 12126

i7-6700K to i7-7700K only 8.4% Performance gain for waiting 1 year 5 months should be similar gains for i7-8700K to i7-9700K.

 

Broadwell, SkyLake, Kaby Lake all were 14nm and Cannon Lake is the first 10nm so it is still special. :worship:

Half my favorite 22nm Ivy Bridge.

Edited by 98SE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, didn't read all the 5 pages so this might be said;

The Z87 chipset still has Xp drivers, https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/20488/Intel-Desktop-Utilities?product=72195 , and has a few pluses over the Z77. Would not bother with the Z68 as they are sold more expensive than a Z77 or Z87 motherboard.

- Supports faster RAM, so your programs run smoother if you drop in a 2133/2400MHz RAM instead of the 1333/1600 that the Z68 can do.

- Support to boot from M.2, some Z77 seem to be able to do it too but it's no warranty

- Better onboard graphics, still, if you render with OpenCL the graphics on the CPU is kind of a bit useless. Image quality also improves most of the time with an dedicated card. That nVidia 610 doesn't add much, but it has it's own video RAM and that could be a plus.

Now, I've never tested XP with M.2 but as far as I can see it should work.

 

On 9/30/2017 at 11:36 AM, dencorso said:

I'm no gamer, but I do serious math and image processing.

Unless serious math processing isn't work, than it's a game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about the delay.
 
My budget is actually pretty close to nothing.  I will have to borrow the money and pay them back later, so I'd like to keep the amount of components at a minimum.  I've also decided to forgo having the option to overclock the CPU so I don't need to get a K.
 
I also had a chat with a salesperson at a computer store I usually buy from, and he advised me to not go for something too old as I may have to buy it second-hand (due to unavailability), which has the added risk of getting components that ran overclocked for an extended period of time, especially in the case of enthousiast boards like the Asus P8Z68 Deluxe.
 

On 10/9/2017 at 5:24 PM, puntoMX said:

The Z87 chipset still has Xp drivers, https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/20488/Intel-Desktop-Utilities?product=72195

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be software intended for Intel-made motherboards.  Can it be used with Asus/Asrock boards?
 
But that's an interesting point you raise there.  A week ago, I couldn't immediately find a Z87 board to my liking; only Z97 boards.  But I'll look again.
 
Just in case somebody's wondering why I'm never mentioning Gigabyte boards... I have used them on computers for clients and think they are a good brand too, but I prefer not to get one for a computer of my own because of their policy on killing PCIe ports.  I know CPUs provide only a limited amount of lanes, but Gigabyte's strategy on disabling PCIe slots or reducing their levels seems more aggressive than with Asus' or Asrock's.  I still want the ability to use as many PCIe slots as possible, so I'd rather see a 16x slot reduced to 8x than having all 1x slots disabled.
 
Another point I seem to have neglected is how much any PCI ports on more modern motherboards can handle.  If I want to keep on using my Audigy 2 PCI card (I know it's considered the worst of all Audigy's, but still), it needs to work.  In light of this, I'm wondering if there's any use in upgrading to an Audigy RX PCIe card.  I've been told it's a "budget" card, but does it have at least the same quality as the Audigy 2?

Edited by Tomcat76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tomcat76 said:

Sorry about the delay.
 
My budget is actually pretty close to nothing.  I will have to borrow the money and pay them back later, so I'd like to keep the amount of components at a minimum.  I've also decided to forgo having the option to overclock the CPU so I don't need to get a K.
 
I also had a chat with a salesperson at a computer store I usually buy from, and he advised me to not go for something too old as I may have to buy it second-hand (due to unavailability), which has the added risk of getting components that ran overclocked for an extended period of time, especially in the case of enthousiast boards like the Asus P8Z68 Deluxe.
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be software intended for Intel-made motherboards.  Can it be used with Asus/Asrock boards?
 
But that's an interesting point you raise there.  A week ago, I couldn't immediately find a Z87 board to my liking; only Z97 boards.  But I'll look again.
 
Just in case somebody's wondering why I'm never mentioning Gigabyte boards... I have used them on computers for clients and think they are a good brand too, but I prefer not to get one for a computer of my own because of their policy on killing PCIe ports.  I know CPUs provide only a limited amount of lanes, but Gigabyte's strategy on disabling PCIe slots or reducing their levels seems more aggressive than with Asus' or Asrock's.  I still want the ability to use as many PCIe slots as possible, so I'd rather see a 16x slot reduced to 8x than having all 1x slots disabled.
 
Another point I seem to have neglected is how much any PCI ports on more modern motherboards can handle.  If I want to keep on using my Audigy 2 PCI card (I know it's considered the worst of all Audigy's, but still), it needs to work.  In light of this, I'm wondering if there's any use in upgrading to an Audigy RX PCIe card.  I've been told it's a "budget" card, but does it have at least the same quality as the Audigy 2?

I'm not sure how low this budget is but if your only reason to hold onto the PCI slot is for the SB Audigy 2 but you want comparable or superior audio quality on a PCIe slot then consider this card.

https://www.asus.com/us/Sound-Cards/Xonar_Essence_STX/

Shows driver support for Windows XP to Windows 10.

I've only seen Z87 boards with PCI slots aplenty but if you find any Z97 with 2 or more PCI slots then go for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, someone else pointed this card out to me as well.  I'd still want to speak to someone who's actually using this card on Windows XP to verify that the primitive bass/treble controls that Windows XP offers inside its Volume Control panel (sys tray speaker icon > Advanced) are supported by the card's drivers.  With most audio cards, those sliders are disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dencorso said:

@jaclaz: In other words, an add-on board with the proper BIOS is a must. Do we have any other reports (and more brands) of further testings?

What a mess.  First you have to get this card which is not cheap.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816151164

It requires you to preinstall a driver to use the drives properly.

Then you have to connect the drives directly to the controller card so no external hook ups like USB.

 

Compared to some legacy USB 4TB external that worked in XP 32-bit for around $150-$200 at most and works on any computer via the USB port on XP 32-bit to W10.

 

I think you'd rather pick the latter than pay $1000 for this controller card and deal with installing the drivers on all systems.  Now once you move the drive to another computer without this controller card you can't read the data so the the legacy USB external wins.

 

If you want drives that work on this controller card the 8TB Red/Blacks most certainly and the 3TB-8TB from Seagate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/13/2017 at 12:40 PM, Tomcat76 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be software intended for Intel-made motherboards.  Can it be used with Asus/Asrock boards?

Most important is the chipset driver; the driver for the NIC and soundchip you have to check for XP drivers, but most still XP support as in general they are older hardware than the chipset. No idea about USB3.0 support under XP. M.2 should work as it's not dependent on the OS, more on the BIOS. Z77 (and older) in general can't boot from M.2 as most BIOS are not updated for it.

I'm using mostly used hardware, didn't care much for if it was overclocked before as it would tell me that the hardware has been tested very well ;). But, I would skip Z68 or Z77 chipset motherboards as the components get a bit old indeed. Common problem you could run into is a damaged socked.

For brands, Asus is expensive, ASRock uses cheaper components, MSI is my choice over GigaByte, and the last one was my favorite for years.

-Ronald

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Looks like availability is a bigger problem than I imagined.  I will go with the X79 chipset---more specifically, the Asus Rampage IV Formula coupled with a Core i7-3820 (SB) and a kit of 4x 4GB DDR3-1600 RAM.  There are no PCI ports, but at least I won't need to worry about the number of available PCIe lanes.  I hope I will still get bass/treble controls with the Audigy RX.
 
The only dilemma for me is whether I should go with 8GB or 16GB of RAM.  I find that Firefox is struggling hard with the <4GB available to Windows XP 32-bit; it easily uses up to 100% of one CPU core and more than 1GB of RAM, sometimes reaching 2GB, making it very sluggish after some time.  But I intend to switch to XP 64-bit.  Will Firefox ever use more than 8GB of RAM?  I can't test it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Does ALC1220 is compatible with XP ?

What about pairing Gigabyte  Z370 AORUS Ultra Gaming with i7 8700k + 32gb ddr4 ram + 275 crusial SSD + 1tb Seagate firecuda sshd ? Just I need to find driver for GTX1060 or 1050ti or make win7 driver run stable.

 

Edited by Dibya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...