3 ms·
> Core 2 is too slow to seriously push any decent NVMe drive * Intel PM45 / ICH9M is too slow to seriously push any decent NVMe drive Pre-integrated IO contro
by ethbr0 4y ago
> Core 2 is too slow to seriously push any decent NVMe drive
* Intel PM45 / ICH9M is too slow to seriously push any decent NVMe drive
Pre-integrated IO controller, so PCIe would have been coming off the southbridge, no?
Which looks like it's PCIe 1.1. Which would mean 4 GB/s max. (ceiling, assuming all of a 1x16 link gets linked up)
- justsomehnguy 4y ago10+ years ago I tested moving some (ancient at THAT time) Celerons[0] to SSD drives. It made absolutely no difference, because the CPU is too damn slow. My own rig was on A64 X2 4200+ (with no less than 8Gb of RAM at any time) for years, with Vista since 2008. I don't remember when I migrated it to SSD (perhaps ~2012-2014?) but I noticed a great improvement in QoL, though it wasn't instant. Years later, somewhere around 2016 I "upgraded" to G2010[1] and despite everything else (well except DDR2 => DDR3) were the same (including OS and the system drive on that SSD) I noticed performance increase in both boot-up and everyday operations. You still need a good IPC to actually push any meaningful amount of data. While OP's T9400 is not Presscot bullshit[2] it is still an ancient shrunk down Merom, ie just the firsts of the Core CPUs. > Which would mean 4 GB/s max And the memory is just 6.4GB/s max. Still, in 2022 this is probably the simplest way to add a decent amount of fast storage for a such ancient machine. [0] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27116/intel-celeron-d-processor-335-256k-cache-2-80-ghz-533-mhz-fsb.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27116/i... [1] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/71071/intel-pentium-processor-g2010-3m-cache-2-80-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/71071/i... [2] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/35562/intel-core2-duo-processor-t9400-6m-cache-2-53-ghz-1066-mhz-fsb.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/35562/i...
- ethbr0 4y agoI haven't kept tabs on modern PCIe / NVMe, but I was figuring transfer would be DMA blasted w/o CPU interaction. Any idea why the Celerons gunked up so badly? Maybe single core blocking?
- justsomehnguy 4y agoIf you are talking about Celerons in my comment then it was SATA drives. But Celerons are shit anyway, couple of weeks ago I replaced a HDD with SSD on Acer Aspire ES1-533 with Celeron N3350 [1], with a fresh Win10 install. It was slow with the original WD Blue, with SSD it just started to slow faster. Still seconds to open menus and overall a very poor performance, despite the whopping 2Mb cache. I have ThinkPad x301 lying somewhere, with a SU9400 Core 2 Duo and 1.8" SSD. Last time I used it (with Win10, too) it performed better than that Acer with Celeron. X301 is from 2008, ES1-533 is from 2016. Intel learned from Mendocino/Coppermine 'fiasco' and since that Celerons never performed well. Obligatory bash.org quote [1] [0] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/95598/intel-celeron-processor-n3350-2m-cache-up-to-2-40-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/95598/i... [1] http://bash.org/?769729 http://bash.org/?769729