gigabyte raid or intel raid

roachyuk · 15 Apr 2009 at 13:41

which should i use for best and reliability thanks

bledd · 15 Apr 2009 at 13:42

intel raid

nothing wrong with the gigabyte one, but the intel one is better

roachyuk · 15 Apr 2009 at 13:50

in what ways will benefit from in the intel over the gagabyte one thanks

bledd · 15 Apr 2009 at 14:13

well it's more mature, and intel raid is used by thousands of systems

rpstewart · 15 Apr 2009 at 14:33

The Intel RAID controller is also embedded in the Southbridge rather than being connected over a 1x PCIe link like the Gigabyte controller will be. Therefore the Intel controller isn't bottlenecked in any way.

If you look at the benchmark thread you see better performance from Intel controllers than Gigabyte/JMicron ones in general.

!TIMMY! · 15 Apr 2009 at 14:53

Yep Intel one should be better. Mines coping well with my 2 Raid0 set ups.

roachyuk · 15 Apr 2009 at 14:55

ok thanks for the advice i am just playin about at the moment ill go change it later but just wondered why do they put it on aswell as the intel if the itel is better mad if you ask me thanks again

rpstewart · 15 Apr 2009 at 15:01

The second controller is there to provide the IDE port since Intel Southbridges don't support IDE anymore. Since the easiest way of providing an IDE port is to add a controller which provides the IDE plus a couple of SATA ports then you get the extra SATA ports.

roachyuk · 15 Apr 2009 at 16:21

ahhhh see something new ive learnt thanks for that

OVC · 15 Apr 2009 at 17:08

roachyuk said:
which should i use for best and reliability thanks

From past experience and working in the industry for longer than i can remember... I would always go with the better the devil you know... Intel. The latest build of Intel RAID is stable and more reliable than Gigabyte.