Originally posted by: Rubycon
My Areca 1680ix-24 says otherwise. It's in an 16X electrical (running at 8X) and performance increased considerably.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Rubycon
My Areca 1680ix-24 says otherwise. It's in an 16X electrical (running at 8X) and performance increased considerably.
Pushing those IOP processor's clockspeed, active cooling on the heatsink?
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Not sure if it stresses the IOP more as its speed is locked at 1.2GHz. The extra speed on the bus gives it more overhead to push data, however.
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I thought there was zero performance gain until the lanes were completely saturated. Overclocking the PCI-E bus is useless, isn't it?
Originally posted by: Idontcare
I was under the distinct impression that the base clock for the IOP processors, cache ram, etc were all multiplier'ed off the PCIe bus (i.e. the bus clock IS the reference clock)...but I will confess I do not have that in writing from anyone at Areca so if you know this to be untrue for fact then I will accept it as such.
But consider how much bandwidth your x8 PCIe slot is making available to the areca card, versus the bandwidth saturation point of the card as you load it with drives, I would be REALLY surprised if the performance bottleneck of a 1680ML is the x8 PCIe interface and not the operating specifications of the controller IC.
(also consider that the entire evolution of the areca card line performance-wise has solely focused on improving the controller IC and not the PCIe interface, further suggesting the bottleneck in performance is not the interface bandwidth, or at least has not been up until the most recent models)
Is the peak performance of a 1680ML really interface bandwidth limited?