Slow Raptor?:'(

[dust]

I got myself an WD6000HLHX 600Gb drive, and was surprised to find out last night that Stalker ShoC takes a long time to install, as opposed to my previous drive(Caviar).

I went ahead and installed HdTune, ran a benchmark and I got:

Minimum Trate - 83Mb/s;
Average - 114Mb/s;
Max - 139Mb/s;

Access time -6.9s;
Burst rate - 193Mb/s.

To compare the results I used this, although I couldn't understand much from it, only that my figures seem a little low:
http://www.storagereview.com/western_digital_velociraptor_review

I was wondering if anyone has the same drive and maybe could replicate my findings.

For the record, I'm using a 2500k,paired with 1600Mhz - 9-9-9-24 8Gb Ram, on a P8-Z68 V LE board, the drive is plugged on the first 6Gb/s Sata.

 

[BFG10K]

Your HDTune scores look a little low, but they can be explained if you’re running something else on the drive at the same time, like an OS. HD Tune should be run on an unpartitioned drive for the cleanest results.

Your test is a little odd though - are you saying you installed the game to the Black just now, then uninstalled and reinstalled on the Raptor? And you used a stop-watch (or similar) to get an accurate measure?

Or are you saying when you installed it on the Black years ago you sort of vaguely remember how fast it was, and this Raptor seems slower?

 

[dust]

Your HDTune scores look a little low, but they can be explained if you’re running something else on the drive at the same time, like an OS. HD Tune should be run on an unpartitioned drive for the cleanest results.

Your test is a little odd though - are you saying you installed the game to the Black just now, then uninstalled and reinstalled on the Raptor? And you used a stop-watch (or similar) to get an accurate measure?

Or are you saying when you installed it on the Black years ago you sort of vaguely remember how fast it was, and this Raptor seems slower?

It is my system drive, this could be the reason as you pointed out. I've had the Caviar as my system drive for the past 4 years and installed Stalker more times than I can remember, that's why I am confused about the long install time. It's just an impression though, and I could be wrong.

 

[BFG10K]

It's just an impression though, and I could be wrong.

It’s quite possible. Unless you’ve done a scientific test then the reasons could be anything, ranging from flawed perception to changes to your system, such as more aggressive anti-virus settings (for example).

But to be honest I’d expect little difference if you’re installing from optical or cloud since the bottleneck is not usually the HDD in those cases.

 

[dust]

Well, you hit the mark again ,
I am using an optical drive.

 

[BrightCandle]

Optical drives have transfer rates in the order of tens of MB's and seek times of like half a second. There is no way your HDD is the bottleneck if your installing from a CD/DVD! Could be a drive from the 1990's it would still outperform a CD.

 

[dust]

Well, I guess I don't really have any reason to complain then

Thank you:thumbsup: