1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

HDD Benchmark Thread.

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Xen0phobiak, 27 Oct 2004.

  1. Veles

    Veles DUR HUR

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    34
    [​IMG]

    Thats a WD Caviar 250Gb SATA2 16Mb cache with a 10Gb partition.

    Nothing special but meh.

    EDIT: Oh yeah using nF4
     
  2. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    Heh, same as me :) I guess the small differences (1% CPU, .2MB/s burst and .2ms Random access) are within margins of error. Main difference is I have a 30GB sys partition and the rest for gubbins (a few games on there, so far), which I guess accounts for the spikes in the graph?
     
  3. Hiren

    Hiren mind control Moderator

    Joined:
    15 May 2002
    Posts:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    13
    Table will be updated once I have a regular internet connection again.
     
  4. hitman012

    hitman012 Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 May 2005
    Posts:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    19
    New SATA Hitachi Deskstar T7K250:

    [​IMG]
     
  5. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    I know you said not to pester but, the tables, they gone!
     
  6. pumpman

    pumpman Minimodder

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    4
    Maxtor 6L200MO Hard Drive Abit NF4 single partion
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 30 Apr 2006
  7. tank_rider

    tank_rider What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    3 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    6
    [​IMG]

    Samsung Spinpoint 250GB SATAII 8MB cache
    nf4-sli chipset
    single partition, drive practically empty
     
  8. Hiren

    Hiren mind control Moderator

    Joined:
    15 May 2002
    Posts:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    13
    Will sort out the tables today, the hosting that they were hosted on has gone. :(
     
  9. teamtd11

    teamtd11 *Custom User Title*

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    30
    [​IMG]
    maxtor dimondmax10 120GB SATA 8MB cache
    nf4-ultra chipset
    2 partitions (109GB/5GB)
     
  10. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,861
    Likes Received:
    469
    250Gb Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 SATA II
    NForce 4 chipset SATA Controller on DFI NF4 SLI-DR
    NCQ off
    unpartitioned NTFS

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  11. thestig198

    thestig198 Artificially Intelligent

    Joined:
    24 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's mine:

    [​IMG]

    It's a Seagate 7200.9 160GB SATA2 drive with 8MB cache. The motherboard is an Abit AN8 Ultra which has the nforce4 ultra chipset.

    I think I have the fastest single 7200rpm drive at the moment. :D
     
  12. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,861
    Likes Received:
    469
    Nice! I was undecided about whether to get mine, or the 7200.9. As you've demonstrated the seagate can be very fast, but apparently the deskstar wins out in real world apps. Whether this is true I have no idea without running some non synthetic, real world benches.

    I still have a couple of 7200.7s and a 7200.8 in my other machine. Great drives that never let me down. The 5 year warranty is a bonus too.
     
    Last edited: 25 Apr 2006
  13. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,045
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    You actually have one of the slowest 7200rpm drives, it just has a high sustained trasnsfer rate due to its 160GB platter (which isn't an accurate measure of true performance on its own)

    sorry to burst your bubble ;)
     
  14. Hiren

    Hiren mind control Moderator

    Joined:
    15 May 2002
    Posts:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    13
    Will post tables tomorrow, sorry for the delay guys.
     
  15. thestig198

    thestig198 Artificially Intelligent

    Joined:
    24 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not in this benchmark clearly (which is what I was referring to when I said the fastest 7200rpm drive at the moment).

    I'd be interested to see where you got the information that this drive is one of the slowest 7200rpm drives from.

    You haven't burst my bubble, I don't regret buying the Seagate over any other manufacturers.
     
  16. hitman012

    hitman012 Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 May 2005
    Posts:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    19
  17. thestig198

    thestig198 Artificially Intelligent

    Joined:
    24 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I said fastest single 7200rpm drive at the moment I meant in relation to HDTach and this thread, I thought that would be obvious given I was posting in this thread. Maybe I'll try to be more specific in future.

    That article is of the 250GB model which overall is probably slower than the 160GB one, so some test results shown in that review may be different.
     
  18. hitman012

    hitman012 Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 May 2005
    Posts:
    4,877
    Likes Received:
    19
    :eyebrow:

    You asked for the information...
     
  19. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,045
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    The 160GB model is at best 3-5% quicker than the 250GB model. The only difference in the drives is the platter desity, your 160 is about 5-7MB/s ahead of the 250's average STR
    Sustained transfer rates of a drive have little indication of real-world performance figures, making hard drives difficult to benchmark accurately without a custom designed benchmark suite (like what SR do)
     
  20. thestig198

    thestig198 Artificially Intelligent

    Joined:
    24 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    That information is not about the 160GB model, test results may (or may not of course) be different if the 160GB model was used.

    In that test the Seagate was one of the slower drives overall, but there are still many 7200rpm drives slower than it.

    Anyway enough of this discussion, there was a misunderstanding after my first post in this thread.

    Edit: Thanks for the info Mister_Tad.
     

Share This Page