The performance difference between FAT32 and NTFS

[Raincity]

I know all about the small disc cluster size and added security in NTFS but has anybody done a objective bench between the two file systems and placed the results to be read on the web anywhere. Thanks

Rain

 

[LANMAN]

Maximum drive size for NTFS is much greater than for FAT, and as drive size increases, performance with NTFS will not degrade as it does with FAT systems.

Test this for yourself, I have found this to be true.

--LANMAN

 

[GT1999]

IBM 45GB 75GXP + T-Bird 1.0GHz + NTFS partitions = The fastest system I've ever used =) This thing boots Windows 2000 faster than any machine I've ever seen. I get my 1.1Ghz tomorrow, this system was for someone else that I built it for.

NTFS!

 

[BCYL]

I read some benchmark reviews before, saying FAT32 is a little faster than NTFS, but only VERY little... so I say they are the same... But sorry I can't find the link back now...

 

[jtshaw]

Although I haven't read the technical papers on NTFS or FAT32 recently I believe that NTFS and FAT32 are very similar, with the exception of the fact that NTFS is a journally file system (please correct me if this is wrong). Journalling FS are usually a tiny bit slower then non-journaling fs however they have other advantages, like no need for scandisk if you have a power failure and no data loss either.

 

[GS1]

FAT file systems are FASTER then NTFS mainly because FAT systems don't have the overhead in which NTFS has, such as security permissions, indexing etc. However with today's super fast 🙂 HDs, the difference in speed becomes less noticable and to be quite honest, with my new HD, I can barely notice the difference in speed between FAT and NTFS.

In my opinion, go for NTFS unless you are still using other Operating Systems, it is defintely a better file system.