The reason is that although NCQ is technically more efficient, the NCQ logic introduces its own overhead which in certain cases SLOWS things down.
This report also reports similiar results:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/03/1...ve_technology/2
QUOTE
In that case, command queuing is a winner all around, right? Not necessarily, because command queuing introduces a slight overhead to the drive's access times. In a typical server environment, queue depths are high and requests are random, so the performance gained from command queuing more than outweighs the overhead. In a desktop environment, a drive is rarely asked to service more than one request at a time, so when NCQ is enabled most of the time the drive is "reordering" a single request. Even in heavy drive access multi-tasking scenarios, queue depths don't generally exceed a couple of requests.
The occasional performance improvement when there is a queue depth of greater than four requests does very little to claw back the overhead of NCQ or TCQ. Desktop applications typically suffer around a five to ten percent drive performance deficit when command queuing is enabled. Would you notice this performance drop? Maybe not, but it's along the same lines as slightly overclocking a CPU or graphics card. Turning it off is technically faster, so you may as well.
Is it worth the hassle??The occasional performance improvement when there is a queue depth of greater than four requests does very little to claw back the overhead of NCQ or TCQ. Desktop applications typically suffer around a five to ten percent drive performance deficit when command queuing is enabled. Would you notice this performance drop? Maybe not, but it's along the same lines as slightly overclocking a CPU or graphics card. Turning it off is technically faster, so you may as well.
Nahh...
Basically stick to whatever mode you are currently on if it's working fine for you.
This post has been edited by Reuben: Feb 13 2008, 06:21 PM
Feb 13 2008, 06:20 PM
Quote
0.0124sec
0.57
6 queries
GZIP Disabled