Hard Drive Benchmarks - What's Hot & What's Not...Poll Added

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: ajemm

Originally posted by: Tweakin
I updated the graph with the latest information. Next run will be slightly smaller to size better.

Now we just need some more test cases...

Here are a few more that I've found

All of these were on my old setup. Abit AN8 32x, Opteron 175 @2.5 GHZ, 2GB DDR 500

Seagate ST3500630AS

Seagate ST3250824AS

Samsung HD501LJ

Great Thread!!

I'll update the list tomorrow...thanks.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
ARC1680 cache speed breaking 2GB/S barrier! 110MHz "optimized" PCI-E 8X used for this test.

Just where do you get this info? You come up with the most exotic arrays I have seen....wish we could all one something like that

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Just where do you get this info? You come up with the most exotic arrays I have seen....wish we could all one something like that

Running tests on my stuff here.

Now for what's NOT hot:

WD500 on USB2.0

Not bad considering it's a portable hard drive in an aluminum box.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Just where do you get this info? You come up with the most exotic arrays I have seen....wish we could all one something like that

Running tests on my stuff here.

Now for what's NOT hot:

WD500 on USB2.0

Not bad considering it's a portable hard drive in an aluminum box.

That's real close to what I found on my usb drive...35~38MB is all it could muster.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

That's real close to what I found on my usb drive...35~38MB is all it could muster.

I think it's safe to say that one is bus limited.

 

[Bad Dude]

Talk about speed but what about the failure rate? All of these new and big drives have such a big failure rate base on customers' reviews.

 

[Acanthus]

Rig in sig, 2x Seagate ST3250410AS in Raid 0 on Intel ICH9-R

min - 77.3 MB/s
max - 116.7 MB/s
ave - 101.4 MB/s
access time - 15.4ms
burst rate - 93.8 MB/s

Not bad for $130 I needed the write speed for video encoding, even with this setup i only run about 85% cpu usage

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Rig in sig, 2x Seagate ST3250410AS in Raid 0 on Intel ICH9-R

min - 77.3 MB/s
max - 116.7 MB/s
ave - 101.4 MB/s
access time - 15.4ms
burst rate - 93.8 MB/s

Not bad for $130 I needed the write speed for video encoding, even with this setup i only run about 85% cpu usage

That's what it is all about!

 

[LittleNemoNES]

3x Raptor 74GB RAID 0Here's mine:

On Intel ICH9

 

[houkouonchi]

Core 2 duo E6600 2.4Ghz @ 3.38 GHz. 8GB DDR2-800 ram. Geforce 8800 GTX 768 MB. MSI nforce 650i SLI mobo. ARECA-1231ML raid5/6 controller. Windows XP x64.

Array:
12x1TB seagate 7200.11 drives (11 TB usable)

Only seems to see 2 GB of the array and gets weird spikes at times (I don't know why)
http://box.houkouonchi.net/hdtune.png

hd tach doesnt do this:

http://box.houkouonchi.net/hdtach.png

HD tune 2.55 Results:

Transfer Rate:
Minimum: 540.3 MB/sec
Maximum: 780.7 MB/sec
Average: 771.8 MB/sec

Access Time: 8.0 ms

Burst Rate 775.8 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 8.7 %

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
What this thread is trying to do is post Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches. Real drives that we buy and use, not $1000 ssd drives.

Just because you don't buy $1,100 SSD's doesn't mean they aren't being bought. Here's my friend's SSD RAID 0 array: link. That's 4x 32GB Mtron SSD's on an Areca ARC-1231 controller, his QX9650 @ 3.6 or 3.8 Ghz, Asus P5E3 Deluxe-WiFi, and 8 GB of PC12800 DDR3.

 

[Frugal1ty]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Tweakin
What this thread is trying to do is post Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches. Real drives that we buy and use, not $1000 ssd drives.

Just because you don't buy $1,100 SSD's doesn't mean they aren't being bought. Here's my friend's SSD RAID 0 array: link. That's 4x 32GB Mtron SSD's on an Areca ARC-1231 controller, his QX9650 @ 3.6 or 3.8 Ghz, Asus P5E3 Deluxe-WiFi, and 8 GB of PC12800 DDR3.

still though, i feel like $4,400 for ~120GB is not quite 'real world'

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Tweakin
What this thread is trying to do is post Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches. Real drives that we buy and use, not $1000 ssd drives.

Just because you don't buy $1,100 SSD's doesn't mean they aren't being bought. Here's my friend's SSD RAID 0 array: link. That's 4x 32GB Mtron SSD's on an Areca ARC-1231 controller, his QX9650 @ 3.6 or 3.8 Ghz, Asus P5E3 Deluxe-WiFi, and 8 GB of PC12800 DDR3.

You totally missed the point...

 

[houkouonchi]

Originally posted by: Frugal1ty
still though, i feel like $4,400 for ~120GB is not quite 'real world'

Can my setup b considered real-world? It was $3200 which is very expensive but at least I am not only getting 120GB out of it and I get 11 TB.

Also I like that I get faster read/write speeds than that get with that SSD setup but I definitely don't get that access time

 

[Scotteq]

Not sure where this would fit in, since this is only a single 7200.11.... I might have defragged the month before, and indexing is on in this. So worst case, I should think.

http://i11.photobucket.com/alb...cotteq/HDTuneTest1.jpg

 

[Andrew1990]

Mine is better than anyone's here, and by that I mean worst than anyones.

Pentium 4 1.3GHz Socket 423
256mb RDRam PC800
Windows XP Home Edition SP2
HP WMT-LX Motherboard
WDC WD136AA{13GB} Hard Drive

http://img504.imageshack.us/im...nchmarkwdcwd136zp6.png

 

[houkouonchi]

Originally posted by: Scotteq
Not sure where this would fit in, since this is only a single 7200.11.... I might have defragged the month before, and indexing is on in this. So worst case, I should think.

http://i11.photobucket.com/alb...cotteq/HDTuneTest1.jpg

I believe hdtune is an io-level benchmark so there is no reason that a severely fragmented drive and a defragged drive would have any difference on this benchmark

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Good idea for a thread Tweakin,

A few weeks back I bought a WD 6400AAKS for my system, but if anyone remembers from my thread a posted a couple weeks ago link, I had numerous issues and had to send it back.

After dealing with some issues with the RMA (they initially sent me a regular 750GB drive, which while storing more of course isn't as fast as the 640GB drive), I finally got a replacement. And to my horror it seemed to have basically the same issues (well, not quite as sever since, for instance, it never showed showing the drive in the BIOS - but still it would freeze up on formatting the drive, etc). I played around with it yesterday, but failed to fix it and had to go to work. Today I tried some more random things, eventually got the system screwed up to the point of needing to clear the CMOS, and somehow after that miraculously the drive has been working since.

Anyways, while I'm obviously paranoid something might go wrong, at the moment it seems to be working fine. Therefore, I was able to run HD Tune on the drive. My transfer times were a bit better than Tweakin's, but my burst rate and access times are worse.

I also posted the result from my older PATA 200GB Maxtor drive, and later I'll update this with the result from my Vostro 1400's 120GB SATA drive.

Oh, and both the 200GB and 640GB results are running on Windows XP 64-bit as well.


AAKS6400 - http://img258.imageshack.us/im...915/hdtune640gbaa7.jpg

Older 200GB PATA Maxtor - http://img258.imageshack.us/im...252/hdtune200gbnb0.jpg

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Good idea for a thread Tweakin,

A few weeks back I bought a WD 6400AAKS for my system, but if anyone remembers from my thread a posted a couple weeks ago link, I had numerous issues and had to send it back.

After dealing with some issues with the RMA (they initially sent me a regular 750GB drive, which while storing more of course isn't as fast as the 640GB drive), I finally got a replacement. And to my horror it seemed to have basically the same issues (well, not quite as sever since, for instance, it never showed showing the drive in the BIOS - but still it would freeze up on formatting the drive, etc). I played around with it yesterday, but failed to fix it and had to go to work. Today I tried some more random things, eventually got the system screwed up to the point of needing to clear the CMOS, and somehow after that miraculously the drive has been working since.

Anyways, while I'm obviously paranoid something might go wrong, at the moment it seems to be working fine. Therefore, I was able to run HD Tune on the drive. My transfer times were a bit better than Tweakin's, but my burst rate and access times are worse.

I also posted the result from my older PATA 200GB Maxtor drive, and later I'll update this with the result from my Vostro 1400's 120GB SATA drive.

Oh, and both the 200GB and 640GB results are running on Windows XP 64-bit as well.


AAKS6400 - http://img258.imageshack.us/im...915/hdtune640gbaa7.jpg

Older 200GB PATA Maxtor - http://img258.imageshack.us/im...252/hdtune200gbnb0.jpg

I'll add the latest entries to the master graph soon...and I'm sorry to hear about your problems with the 640AAKS. I now have three and they all have worked great out of the box...I just wish I had the IP35-Pro with RAID now!

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Good idea for a thread Tweakin,

A few weeks back I bought a WD 6400AAKS for my system, but if anyone remembers from my thread a posted a couple weeks ago link, I had numerous issues and had to send it back.

After dealing with some issues with the RMA (they initially sent me a regular 750GB drive, which while storing more of course isn't as fast as the 640GB drive), I finally got a replacement. And to my horror it seemed to have basically the same issues (well, not quite as sever since, for instance, it never showed showing the drive in the BIOS - but still it would freeze up on formatting the drive, etc). I played around with it yesterday, but failed to fix it and had to go to work. Today I tried some more random things, eventually got the system screwed up to the point of needing to clear the CMOS, and somehow after that miraculously the drive has been working since.

Anyways, while I'm obviously paranoid something might go wrong, at the moment it seems to be working fine. Therefore, I was able to run HD Tune on the drive. My transfer times were a bit better than Tweakin's, but my burst rate and access times are worse.

I also posted the result from my older PATA 200GB Maxtor drive, and later I'll update this with the result from my Vostro 1400's 120GB SATA drive.

Oh, and both the 200GB and 640GB results are running on Windows XP 64-bit as well.


AAKS6400 - http://img258.imageshack.us/im...915/hdtune640gbaa7.jpg

Older 200GB PATA Maxtor - http://img258.imageshack.us/im...252/hdtune200gbnb0.jpg

I'll add the latest entries to the master graph soon...and I'm sorry to hear about your problems with the 640AAKS. I now have three and they all have worked great out of the box...I just wish I had the IP35-Pro with RAID now!

Thanks. I'm glad this one seems to (finally) be working alright - its nearly 2 hours into a run of HDTune's error scan, and thus far (at the 600GB position) there haven't been any problems.

I too half wish I had RAID, though I somewhat-intentionally made sure to get a motherboard without it or SLI/Crossfire support to keep myself from being tempted to buy some crazy setup (though I could always get a RAID PCI Express card...).

Edit - actually it just finished with that test, successfully. Seems like the drive is working fine it it survived a minute shy of two hours of error checking...I hope.

 

[Frugal1ty]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Mine is better than anyone's here, and by that I mean worst than anyones.

Pentium 4 1.3GHz Socket 423
256mb RDRam PC800
Windows XP Home Edition SP2
HP WMT-LX Motherboard
WDC WD136AA{13GB} Hard Drive

http://img504.imageshack.us/im...nchmarkwdcwd136zp6.png

that's actually faster than the 4200 RPM hitachi laptop drive in my IBM T40.

 

[Rubycon]

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/C6FT7/7345at.gif

Maxtor 7345AT IDE drive on Occtek 486DX4120 (AMD) 64MB EDO ram, Win95C. Diamond Stealth 64 Video VLB w/ 2MB DRAM. :laugh:

 

[Frugal1ty]

also, here's an old seagate (as in three years old) 80GB drive that i was going to make a RAID array out of. actually i was going to make an array out of three of them, but they are pathetic in RAID so i scrapped that project instead to go with two 160 western digitals in RAID0. . . same capacity as the WD 3200AAKS slightly faster and much better latency (also much hotter too, but eh)

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Tweakin
What this thread is trying to do is post Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches. Real drives that we buy and use, not $1000 ssd drives.

Just because you don't buy $1,100 SSD's doesn't mean they aren't being bought. Here's my friend's SSD RAID 0 array: link. That's 4x 32GB Mtron SSD's on an Areca ARC-1231 controller, his QX9650 @ 3.6 or 3.8 Ghz, Asus P5E3 Deluxe-WiFi, and 8 GB of PC12800 DDR3.

You totally missed the point...

I don't believe I did. You said "Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches.". Just because you (and I, for that matter) would never consider spending ~$4,400 on storage for a single system (plus $850 for the Areca card), doesn't mean real users aren't doing so.

Originally posted by: Frugal1ty
still though, i feel like $4,400 for ~120GB is not quite 'real world'

You aren't the only one who feels that way. I did my best to talk him out of buying them, but he wouldn't hear of it. Since he already had a 12 drive external SCSI array for storage, though, he's not lacking in storage capability. He just uses the SSD's for his OS and apps, along with temporary storage for his unedited video files, before they're sent to the SCSI array. I tried to talk him into going with 4x1 GB drives, which were ~$400 at that time, but he said no, and since it was his money, he bought what he wanted.

 

[Tweakin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Tweakin
What this thread is trying to do is post Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches. Real drives that we buy and use, not $1000 ssd drives.

Just because you don't buy $1,100 SSD's doesn't mean they aren't being bought. Here's my friend's SSD RAID 0 array: link. That's 4x 32GB Mtron SSD's on an Areca ARC-1231 controller, his QX9650 @ 3.6 or 3.8 Ghz, Asus P5E3 Deluxe-WiFi, and 8 GB of PC12800 DDR3.

You totally missed the point...

I don't believe I did. You said "Real World Statistics from users machines, not what anand or tom or any other site does with their benches.". Just because you (and I, for that matter) would never consider spending ~$4,400 on storage for a single system (plus $850 for the Areca card), doesn't mean real users aren't doing so.

Originally posted by: Frugal1ty
still though, i feel like $4,400 for ~120GB is not quite 'real world'

You aren't the only one who feels that way. I did my best to talk him out of buying them, but he wouldn't hear of it. Since he already had a 12 drive external SCSI array for storage, though, he's not lacking in storage capability. He just uses the SSD's for his OS and apps, along with temporary storage for his unedited video files, before they're sent to the SCSI array. I tried to talk him into going with 4x1 GB drives, which were ~$400 at that time, but he said no, and since it was his money, he bought what he wanted.

Then let me clear it up a little more...what I meant was 90% of general users, not the special 10% who opt to buy the best of the best 'cause they can...you know, the average Joe....