1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:07,680
Now, this is something I've wanted to test since the Intel SSD 510 series

2
00:00:05,600 --> 00:00:12,440
drives came out, and I finally got a chance to do it. I replaced on my test

3
00:00:10,320 --> 00:00:18,320
bench my Intel P67A

4
00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:20,400
GD65, and I have put in a similar

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:26,000
top-of-the-line AMD configuration with an 1100T, uh, the same RAM, same video

6
00:00:23,439 --> 00:00:31,760
card, and I replaced it with an 890 FX board from Gigabyte. This is actually

7
00:00:27,840 --> 00:00:34,160
the 890 FXA UD5. Now, what's interesting

8
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:40,000
about 890 FX boards is that they all have SATA 36 GB per second. And unlike

9
00:00:37,040 --> 00:00:43,600
P67 boards, which have anywhere from 2 to four, with only two of them running

10
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:48,480
off the Intel chipset, and the other two usually running off a third party

11
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:51,520
chipset, all six of the SATA 3 6 GB per

12
00:00:48,480 --> 00:00:53,199
second ports on an AMD 890FX board are

13
00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:59,440
running off of the chipset. So you can run up to six Theta 3 6 GB per second

14
00:00:56,320 --> 00:01:02,160
drives. But what is the performance of

15
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:08,240
the AMD chipset solution versus the Intel one? So I have attempted to at

16
00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:14,080
least give us some idea of what the answer would be. So here on the left you

17
00:01:11,119 --> 00:01:18,159
can see the AMD score and on the right you can see my saved Intel score with a

18
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:22,000
single drive running at SATA 36 GB per second. So you can see for reads, the

19
00:01:20,159 --> 00:01:27,040
AMD controller doesn't quite hit the same sequential read

20
00:01:24,439 --> 00:01:32,640
speeds, whereas everything else is actually fairly similar. So for random

21
00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:37,119
performance, the AMD controller is on par. And for sequential reads, it falls

22
00:01:35,520 --> 00:01:42,240
behind a little bit and other than that, it's pretty much right there. So, as

23
00:01:40,079 --> 00:01:45,840
long as the CPU you choose is a good performer compared to whatever Intel

24
00:01:44,079 --> 00:01:50,560
platform would have been equivalent, it looks like if you're running a SATA 36

25
00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:55,439
GB per second drive such as this one, there's not going to be too much of a

26
00:01:52,840 --> 00:02:00,479
disadvantage other than just this one tiny thing uh to running an AMD

27
00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:04,240
motherboard based on 890 FX. So, thanks for checking out this video on Linus

28
00:02:01,759 --> 00:02:09,880
Tech Tips. Don't forget to subscribe for more unboxings, reviews, and other

29
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:09,880
computer videos.