Anybody has a *SATA* Maxtor DM9+ or Barracuda 7200.7 (120GB) drive? Please test your HDD performance with HD Tach 2.70!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

Dance123

Senior member
Jun 10, 2003
387
0
0
Hi,

Could everybody, especially those who have a 120 or 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 or Maxtor DM9+, please download HD Tach 2.70 which you can find over here and run the program to test the read speed and random access time of there drives. The tool is very simple to use!

If everybody could do this we could see how well each drive performs.

Please mention the following:

1/ complete description of your drive (like "Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 120gb SATA" for instance)
2/ if you have a single drive or use a RAID setup. I am mostly interested in single drive results!
3/ Read Speed: maximum, minimum and average MB/s
4/ Random Access Time
5/ perhaps also read burst speed and CPU utilization, although I don't know how import those values are.

NOTE: is it correct that for 7200rpm IDE drives you have to substract 4.2ms from the Random Access Time in order to get the correct seek time. Does it work like that?

NOTE2: is it true that a good 7200rpm IDE drive should get around 60MB/s average read speed?! Anybody can confirm this?

NOTE3: I have stronge doubts the Barracuda 7200.7 can get 8.5ms seek time, cause the review at Storagereview.com of this drive gave slower times, so if you have this drive defenitely let me know! Adding the 4.2ms latency, you should get a Random Access Time of 12.7 if I am correct.

Thanks everybody for participating in this test!

Mike.
 
I

InlineFive

Diamond Member
Sep 20, 2003
9,599
2
0
Fixed HDTach download link.

Main Rig:
Athlon XP 3200+
512MB PC3200 DDR
Asus A7N8X-X
nForce2 400 and MCP
Maxtor DiamondMax 9+ (80GB, single drive, UltraDMA 6 Mode, all tests done using nVidia SW IDE Driver)

Read Speed; Maximum: 66.9MB/s
Read Speed; Average: 48.8MB/s
Read Speed; Minimum: 24.6MB/s
Random Access Time: 20.2ms
Read Burst Speed: 108.0MB/s
CPU Utilization: 100.0%

2nd Rig:
Athlon XP 1700+
640MB PC2100 DDR
MSI KT4VL
VIA KT400
Maxtor DiamondMax 9+ (80GB, single drive, UltraDMA 6 mode, all tests done using Hyperion 4.51 drivers)

Read Speed; Maximum: 62.8MB/s
Read Speed; Average: 48.9MB/s
Read Speed; Minimum: 29.7MB/s
Random Access Time: 16.1ms
Read Burst Speed: 85.5MB/s
CPU Utilization: 25.3%

There you are! From the looks of it the VIA chipsets are the way to go for IDE right now based off of my minimal testing. And to the part about 60MB/s second average read it just depends on the drive. However unless you RAID this is probably impossible with current IDE drives.

-Por

EDIT: Look lower down for updates nForce benchmarks.
 
D

Dance123

Senior member
Jun 10, 2003
387
0
0
Wow, are you sure your Maxtor DM9+ has CPU Utilization: 100.0%!!! Isn't that way too much?!! HD Tach manual says: "CPU utilization (as a percentage) - This reflects the amount of time the CPU needed to read data from the hard drive. Generally a good drive interface will use less than 10%."
 
I

InlineFive

Diamond Member
Sep 20, 2003
9,599
2
0
Originally posted by: Dance123
Wow, are you sure your Maxtor DM9+ has CPU Utilization: 100.0%!!! Isn't that way too much?!! HD Tach manual says: "CPU utilization (as a percentage) - This reflects the amount of time the CPU needed to read data from the hard drive. Generally a good drive interface will use less than 10%."
Click to expand...

That's what HDTach reports. Still, on an XP 3200+ you would think it would be less! I am going to benchmark it without the nVidia SW IDE driver later today using the default Window's nVidia IDE Driver instead.
 
D

Dance123

Senior member
Jun 10, 2003
387
0
0
That's what HDTach reports. Still, on an XP 3200+ you would think it would be less! I am going to benchmark it without the nVidia SW IDE driver later today using the default Window's nVidia IDE Driver instead.
Click to expand...
Please let us know if you get lower results, cause according to the HD Tach manual CPU utilization should be below 10%. You other drive seems also very high in CPU utilization.

I also just noticed your random acess times seem very high for such a drive with good reputation. I thought this was going to be around 13.5ms (seek time would be: 13.5ms access time - 4.2ms latency = 9.3ms seek time). What about this?!!

Everybody else could also post there results of there Maxtor DM9+ or Barracuda 7200.7 or other drive. Interested to find out if Barracuda 7200.7 really has 8.5ms seek time..
 
Megatomic

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
Athlon XP (barton core) 2500+ @ 3200+
1GB PC3200 DDR (11-2-2-2.0)
Abit NF7-S Rev. 2.0 BIOS 20
nForce2 400 Ultra and MCP-T
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus9 60GB ATA133 7200RPM 2MB cache in UltraDMA 6 Mode using nVidia SW IDE Driver in WinXP SP1a

HD Tach 2.70 (all scores are as reported by HD Tach 2.70)
Random Access Time: 15.0 ms
Read Burst Speed: 115.6 MB/s
Read Speed Max: 50.4 MB/s
Read Speed Min: 26.8 MB/s
Read Speed Avg: 41.4 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 0.0%

I don't think HD Tach knows how to measure our CPU utilization while using the SW IDE driver.
 
I

InlineFive

Diamond Member
Sep 20, 2003
9,599
2
0
This update!

I discovered the problem with the high utilization! I am running SETI@Home in the background which was (like it was supposed to) using up all of my spare clock cycles. The updated banchmarks (without SETI@Home running) are listed below.

Read Speed; Maximum: 66.8MB/s
Read Speed; Average: 49.0MB/s
Read Speed; Minimum: 32.3MB/s
Random Access Time: 19.8ms
Read Burst Speed: 112.1MB/s
CPU Utilization: 22.8%

I guess then this makes the nForce chipset on my systems better then the VIA chipset.

-Por
 
NesuD

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
here are the results of 2 80 gig DM+9s raid 0 or is it 1 can't remember which is which right now striped anyway not mirrored. Using rocket raid PATA_SATA converters and The onboard promise SATA raid controller in my Soltek SL-75FRN2-RL Just incase your interested.
Read Speed; Maximum: 98.0MB/s
Read Speed; Average: 58.8MB/s
Read Speed; Minimum: 24.3.3MB/s
Random Access Time: 13.1ms
Read Burst Speed: off the scale at 200 ( that doesn'r look right)
CPU Utilization: 14.4%
 
I

Ionizer86

Diamond Member
Jun 20, 2001
5,292
0
76
Just to let you know, take it with a grain of salt. My DM9+ was faster on stock than the Seagate, but seeks were tons louder! I toned it down with some AAM, and it's still a tad louder than the 7200.7, AND it's now slower, especially at seeks :p
 
D

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
Seagate 7200.7 80GB SATA drive on Abit IC7 mb.

12.7ms
90.6 MB/s burst

Max 55.9
Min 32
Avg 46.2

2.1% cpu

Don't know if it would be better if I actually defragged the drive. Only have about 5Gigs of free space.
 
NesuD

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: Megatomic
NesusD, if the drives are striped and there are only 2 of them it is a RAID 0 setup.
Click to expand...

Yea was having a brain cramp when i made that post.

 
W

WobbleWobble

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,867
1
0
Read Max - 63.6MB/s
Read Min - 31.3MB/s
Read Avg - 47.5MB/s
CPU - 23.2%
Random Access - 16.8ms
Burst - 83.5MB/s

A7N8X-Deluxe using onboard IDE with a DM+9 120GB 8MB (MS drivers, Maxboost)
 
S

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Read max = 76.5
Read min = 38.5
Read avg =65.4
Random Access Time: 5.9ms
Read Burst Speed: 183.1MB/s
CPU Utilization: 2.1%

Seagate Cheetah Ultra 320 15.3k SCSI 36gig
 
I

InlineFive

Diamond Member
Sep 20, 2003
9,599
2
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Read max = 76.5
Read min = 38.5
Read avg =65.4

Seagate Cheetah Ultra 320 15.3k SCSI
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem as fast as it should be in my inexperienced opinion.
 
S

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81


I have posted my scores before and was told by others here that they were on par with what I should expect from that drive.

 
C

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0
I find my DM9 slower than both my Seagate and my WD drive (all 7200 RPM)

I also find since I've had to replace this drive once, as well as replacing MANY DM8 drives, that I now hate Maxtor. :p
 
S

skriefal

Golden Member
Apr 10, 2000
1,424
3
81
Seagate 7200.7, 120gb w/2MB cache:
Random Access Time: 14.8ms
Maximum Read Speed: 62.3 MB/s
Minimum Read Speed: 30.0 MB/s
Average Read Speed: 47.0 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 6.4%

Maxtor DM9+, 160gb w/8MB cache (AAM enabled for maximum noise reduction):
Random Access Time: 18.0ms
Maximum Read Speed: 62.8 MB/s
Minimum Read Speed: 20.4 MB/s
Average Read Speed: 48.9 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 7.2%

Both drives were attached to an ASUS P4P800 motherboard with Intel 865PE chipset. I ran each test twice and posted the better of the two runs.

Also, I wouldn't put too much faith in the "Minimum Read Speed". I ran each test a few more times, and the minimum speed varies considerably from run to run -- from as little as 11MB/s to as much as 30MB/s. It seems best to ignore those numbers.
 
X

XBoxLPU

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2001
4,249
1
0
Athlon XP 1700 + @ 2ghz ( 185 X 11.5 )
768 MB of Kingston PC3000/PC3200 memory
Epox 8RDA+
Not nforce 2 400
Maxtor 6Y160P0 and Maxtor 6Y120P0
Windows XP SP1, nforce 2.45, SW drivers not installed

Maxtor 6y160P0

Random Access Time: 14.2 MB/s
Maximum Read Speed: 63.7 MB/s
Minimum Read Speed: 27.7 MB/s
Average Read Speed: 48.8 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 23.3 %

Maxtor 6y120P0

Random Access Time: 13.7 MB/s
Maximum Read Speed: 51.0 MB/s
Minimum Read Speed: 26.8 MB/s
Average Read Speed: 41.3 MB/s
CPU Utilization: 22.2 %
 
A

Ardan

Senior member
Mar 9, 2003
621
0
0
Primary PC
Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2.2Ghz/400Mhz FSB
512MB PC3200 DDR (2x256MB)
Abit NF7-S Revision 2.0
nForce2 Ultra400 and MCP-T
Seagate Barracuda P-ATA 80GB w/ 2MB cache (non-official, 'mixed' 3.13 nForce drivers)

Random Access Time: 14.6ms
Read Speed Maximum: 62.6MB/s
Read Speed Minimum: 17.9MB/s
Read Speed Average: 47.3MB/s
Read Burst Speed: 88.9MB/s
CPU Utilization: 22.5%

I had a few programs still running; didn't care to close them out. Don't go by these figures, because the real-world performance is pretty sad. The Western Digital 80GB SE in the other PC scores near this one in HDTach but can be 5x faster in some cases. For instance, it takes me an agonizingly long time to load a Desert Combat 0.6 levle on here...somewhere around the figure of 30 seconds total. However, it takes only 10 seconds to load a DC 0.6 map on the other PC. You can make the same comparison on more than one application....I just thought i'd point that out to you.

I plan to get an 80 or 120GB Hitachi Deskstar 8MB SATA drive next year to replace this one (and use this HD for linux) to suit my video/sound/coding and gaming needs. I'm referring to the lower sizes of the Deskstar 7K250 that they reviewed on Storagereview.
 
MDE

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
Maxtor DM+9 2MB cache on NF7-S with latest Nvidia IDE drivers installed by itself on primary IDE channel

Random Access 13.1ms
Minimum read 32.4MB/s
Maximum read 56.6 MB/s
Average read 44.6 MB/s
Read burst 113.6 MB/s
CPU Utilization 25.1%

Had Opera, AIM, Norton AV 2003, etc running at the time.
 
D

Dance123

Senior member
Jun 10, 2003
387
0
0
Anybody who has a SATA Maxtor DM9+ or Barracuda 7200.7 (120GB) drive and could test the performance of his drive with HD Tach 2.70 (see above for link to download it).
 
S

suklee

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,575
10
81
120GB 7200.7 Plus ATA (8meg cache)
XP2500+ on NF7-S
2x512 PC3200 Winbond CH5

Read Max: 60.3MB/s
Read Min: 32.8MB/s
Read Avg: 47.4MB/s
Read Burst: 86.8MB/s
Random Access Time: 14.6ms
CPU Utilization: 25.9%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom