+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: msahci vs. iaStor

  1. #1
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    39,386
    Activity Longevity
    11/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss39386

    Question msahci vs. iaStor

    My new laptop has an Intel chipset. The official driver package only changes the disk controller's name in the device manager, while still using Microsoft's msahci driver. But the "real" one (iaStor) can be obtained through other sources, and installs and works fine.

    Which one do you suggest I use for maximum performance? I ran a benchmark on both drivers; msahci was a handful of MB/s faster than iaStor under the same conditions, then slightly slower. I have already done a search on the Internet, and expectedly found arguments for and against both.
    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  2. #2
    Well logic dictates that a driver from its manufacturer would have more performance than the generic, msahci, one.
    Why not try one at a time and run a benchmark on the drives, like bench32 and see for yourself. And also post the results here so that I and others can be enlightened.
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Master Razor View Post
    Well logic dictates that a driver from its manufacturer would have more performance than the generic, msahci, one.
    And then we met companies like ATI AMD who code shit drivers. Little logic in the field of drivers, I'm afraid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Master Razor View Post
    Why not try one at a time and run a benchmark on the drives, like bench32 and see for yourself. And also post the results here so that I and others can be enlightened.
    Doesn't the OP state he has already done so and they were inconclusive?


    Anyway, my two cents: unless you're doing something funky, leave the disk drivers alone. You're only bringing a headache upon yourself. You're not going to notice a few MB's anyway, it's not worth the trouble nor time.
    Don't try to fix what isn't broken dude, spent that time on something more useful ;-)
    Last edited by Sazzy; 31.05.15 at 23:44.
    g̺̗͙̺l̜̜i͖̦͇̙t͕̲̜c͇̮͕̺̩͎̰̜h͕̦̘
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  4. #4
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    39,386
    Activity Longevity
    11/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss39386
    Quote Originally Posted by Master Razor View Post
    Well logic dictates that a driver from its manufacturer would have more performance than the generic, msahci, one.
    That's what I thought, until I read some forum posts about how iaStor slowed things down and caused freezes. In this particular case, whether there are any benefits is likely hardware-dependent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sazzy View Post
    unless you're doing something funky, leave the disk drivers alone. You're only bringing a headache upon yourself. You're not going to notice a few MB's anyway, it's not worth the trouble nor time.
    But everything in my system must be tweaked for maximum performance! That's why I only have six svchost.exe processes running on Windows 7.

    I may run a few more tests, but I can see myself heeding your advice. Since neither the chipset driver package nor the preinstalled Windows 8 OS used Intel's driver (granted, Windows 8 includes the newer storahci), I'm guessing Microsoft's one is the better choice anyway.
    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  5. #5
    But everything in my system must be tweaked for maximum performance! That's why I only have six svchost.exe processes running on Windows 7.
    Whatever you did/planning to do, don't do it. You can only mess up your system.
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  6. #6
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    39,386
    Activity Longevity
    11/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss39386
    Been running like this for several years now. I don't miss any functionality, and the extra available RAM results in better performance for everything merely by avoiding the paging file. This was particularly noticeable with my first laptop, which only had 1 GB.
    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  7. #7
    But today RAM is the cheapest part in a computer
    g̺̗͙̺l̜̜i͖̦͇̙t͕̲̜c͇̮͕̺̩͎̰̜h͕̦̘
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

  8. #8
    Moderator anon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.02.08
    Posts
    39,386
    Activity Longevity
    11/20 19/20
    Today Posts
    1/5 ssss39386
    Quote Originally Posted by Sazzy View Post
    But today RAM is the cheapest part in a computer
    And all of my laptops have as much of it as they can support But that's not a lot (two, two and four GB).

    The desktop only has one gig and a half, but DDR1 sticks cost a bit more than what I'd pay for an upgrade I don't really need anyway. It runs Windows 2003 and nothing too memory-intensive.
    "I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
    Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
    Thanks

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •