HD results. Interesting.. dissapointing..?

[zCypher]

Text

Western Digital 80GB 7200 8MB vs Seagate 80GB 7200rpm 2MB. The Seagate actually has a higher maximum throughput AND higher average, while the Western Digital has a slightly lower seek time, but that's it. The WD also seems to have many more "spikes" in the graph... dammit, why?

Also - how come the "slower" drive is actually significantly faster? Shouldn't the 8MB yield at least some improvement over the 2MB? Or do I have it all wrong? What's goin on here!

 

[pillage2001]

NEver heard of jpg????

:Q

 

[bozo1]

lol

 

[zCypher]

god damn, it's just a fresh install.. jeez, you'd think all you leet haxors on super fast connections wouldn't really care about a 2 meg bump file

 

[zCypher]

does anybody actually know anything pertaining to the topic...? or is it just assumed that 8MB drives aren't any faster (possibly slower) than 2MB drives?

 

[Paulson]

My 80 gig WD is fast enough for me not to care about a benchmark...

 

[Jeff7181]

I never really trust HD Tach to accurately tell me the performance of my drive... it even gets my CPU Utilization wrong... says it's up around 50-60%... when I can watch the graph in the Task Manager and not see it go above 5%

Out of curiosity, what does you drive score in PCMark?

To answer your question though... no, 8 MB drives aren't slower than 2 MB drives... the cache allows the drive to predict what data will be needed next, and load it into cache memory where it can be retrieved even as much as 100 times faster than if it had to be physically read from the disk. That means, having a larger cache increases the chance that something requested will be in the cache for quick access. That also means, the cache doesn't play much of a role in that benchmark that measures the ability of the drive to physically read directly from the disk. A benchmark such as PCMark that simulates real world use, is a MUCH more effective tool in measuring how fast the drive will "feel."

 

[zCypher]

dont know, ill have to get it and find out.

my CPU utilization is 7-8% or whatever.. it said 70% once, but i rebenched and it was fine.

 

[ElFenix]

are you comparing a 40 gig/platter drive to an 80 gig/platter drive?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: zCypher
god damn, it's just a fresh install.. jeez, you'd think all you leet haxors on super fast connections wouldn't really care about a 2 meg bump file

Paint has the ability to save as jpg...

 

[zCypher]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: zCypher
god damn, it's just a fresh install.. jeez, you'd think all you leet haxors on super fast connections wouldn't really care about a 2 meg bump file

Paint has the ability to save as jpg...

Not out of a fresh 2K install it doesn't. Need a screenshot of that too?

 

[zCypher]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
are you comparing a 40 gig/platter drive to an 80 gig/platter drive?

aww MAN, thats the thing I forgot to consider! DAMN!

anyway the Seagate is model ST380011A and the Western Digital is model WDC WD800JB-00CRA1

 

[zCypher]

argh! the Seagate is 80GB/platter whereas the WD is 40GB/platter! Could this explain the performance difference despite the 1/4-size cache? Why don't I look into these things before buying something.. lol

 

[zCypher]

PCMark2002 results (with Norton autoprotect running in the background.. didn't bother disabling it)
CPU score : 3509
Memory score : 2622
HDD score : 1105