Thats a WD Caviar 250Gb SATA2 16Mb cache with a 10Gb partition. Nothing special but meh. EDIT: Oh yeah using nF4
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?
250Gb Hitachi Deskstar T7K250 SATA II NForce 4 chipset SATA Controller on DFI NF4 SLI-DR NCQ off unpartitioned NTFS
Here's mine: 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
