# Hard Drive Benchmark Results



## Geoff

Im curious as to see what you guys get for benchmark results with your hard drive.  Download HD Tune , run it, and post back with your screen shot.  This way we can see if having RAID 0 really makes much of a difference, if SATAII is much better then SATA, ect.

Heres mine:





That was done on a Seagate Hard Drive (320GB, 16MB Cache, SATAII (using SATA150 port though), 7200RPM, Perpendicular Recording)


----------



## The_Other_One

Here's from my old Raptor 36G RAID.  I'll make another later on with my current systems using this program.

As for the performace difference in SATA, IDE, etc...  I don't think you'll see too much between interfaces.  I beleive it'll all depend on the drives.

*edit*
And here's the HD benchmark for my Averatec's 4200RPM, 60G drive.    I beleive it's just ATA133.


----------



## DKdeadly

o boy here i come with my 150gb raptor.We will see what this big boy can do.


----------



## DKdeadly

I dont know about hard drives tell if its fast?But as you notice the raptor 150gb gets very hot and i have a zalman thing for it to keep it cool.But 41C is not bad for harddrive is it?


----------



## Geoff

DKdeadly said:


> I dont know about hard drives tell if its fast?But as you notice the raptor 150gb gets very hot and i have a zalman thing for it to keep it cool.But 41C is not bad for harddrive is it?



Doesnt seem much higher then mine, as i said before, raptors are over rated 

Hard drive mfg's say that hard drives shouldn't get above 40C for longest life.


----------



## DKdeadly

but its faster.  and you have a good harddrive too.The one you have its one of the best ones too.


----------



## WeatherMan

Here's mine, have a huge spike due to disk access


----------



## Geoff

Bootup05 said:


> Here's mine, have a huge spike due to disk access


That happens to me sometimes when someone messages me when im running the benchmark.

Is your drive SATA or SATAII?


----------



## WeatherMan

Just standard SATA.


----------



## The_Other_One

DKdeadly said:


> I dont know about hard drives tell if its fast?But as you notice the raptor 150gb gets very hot and i have a zalman thing for it to keep it cool.But 41C is not bad for harddrive is it?



That's a bit slower than I was first expecting, but I guess it's about right if I got ~215Mbps with my RAID...

As for the temp, that does seem a little high.  As you saw with my laptop, it was only running at 28*C(but it has been in the 40s and 50s if I recall correctly)


----------



## Nini

Im not even on my computer right now (friends house) but they had this program on their comp..thought i shud post it


----------



## Geoff

heres a screenshot from the family PC hard drive.  It's a very old drive, but im not sure of the specs:


----------



## fade2green514

the main difference with the raptor is the access time. throughput isnt much different though, probably because they use sata150 ports.
ill post my drives bench in a minute. i think mine runs like 25C which is nice and cool... but its performance is average.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e55/fade2green514/hdbench.jpg
i like my burst rate and my temp mostly... lol
probably because i have a 120mm fan cooling my hard drives though. lol


----------



## Geoff

Im wondering how some 15K SAS drives work.  You can get a 74GB for around $410, lol.


----------



## fade2green514

[-0MEGA-];432970 said:
			
		

> Im wondering how some 15K SAS drives work.  You can get a 74GB for around $410, lol.



probably a lot better than the raptors because they dont use sata1, the interface doesnt bottleneck the access time as much...

i think ill do a fresh reformat, and bench it then... and then once i get my second 80gb do another fresh reformat, and see what the performance differences are.


----------



## fade2green514

now that i finally have my internet back-

this is my dads 60gig (ata somethin or other)





this is my single 80gig sata2 8mb buffer (western digital)





and this is dual 80gig in RAID 0 (32kb stripe)





haha nice, i doubled my bandwidth with absolutely no penalty on the latency.


----------



## Cromewell

> probably a lot better than the raptors because they dont use sata1, the interface doesnt bottleneck the access time as much...


The interface speed isn't bottlenecking a raptor. Not even close.


----------



## MatrixEVO

Here is my benchmark. I have a Hitachi Deskstar 250GB SATAII:





I am using the Antec P180 case and it separates the hard drive into its own channel for cooling along with the PSU at the other end of the case. I have a fan that blows air right past the HDD and to the rear of the case. I think this is why I have a good temp (29c after benchmark).


----------



## Cromewell

Just to show the difference from SATA150 and SATA300. This is the same model drive as Omega had but was run on the faster interface.


----------



## Geoff

Very interesting.  And for those who dont feel like scrolling back some pages, here was my result on a SATA150 interface:







And here was on his 300 interface.


Cromewell said:


>


----------



## Archangel

look at the temp..  :/   well, its always been like that, even in the other case..   so i gues either the sensor isnt correctly callibrated, or the HD is just a hot one.


----------



## agapetos

try other programs for monotoring your temps. check also inside your case for flow and the proper location of your hdd. It seems way too high. I usually put a hand on my drives when they seem hot, and I can tell usually to the touch wether it is an error or if it really is that hot.

After seeing these bench marks, I think I want to try to do a RAID 0 or something.

It always amazes me how we are stuck at these low speeds on HDD...relatively speaking that is........man CPU speeds, GPU speeds and memory speeds are getting really up there but HDD still grinds along in low speeds......physically......are we ever going to see higher speeds, like in the 2 or 3 hundreds at least....MB p/s that is........that would be nice.....sgotta be a better way to do this.

any one can tell me what RAID is the best, just for speed on the OS?
I got win xp pro and a m2n32SLI motherboard.

thanks


----------



## SirKenin

HD Tach is a useless benchmark, just like Sisoft Sandra.  It will not tell you if RAID 0 is any better, because it does not tell you real world performance, only "theoretical" performance...  Storage Review is the leading authority on harddrives and they bash HD Tach rather handily.

Hate to say it, but you pretty much wasted everyone's time.


----------



## Cromewell

> HD Tach is a useless benchmark, just like Sisoft Sandra. It will not tell you if RAID 0 is any better, because it does not tell you real world performance, only "theoretical" performance...


IMO all benchmarks are useless. They waste time you could be using to do something.


----------



## MatrixEVO

Cromewell said:


> IMO all benchmarks are useless. They waste time you could be using to do something.



I think that benchmarks are very important as they are a main way to compare hardware.


----------



## Cromewell

> I think that benchmarks are very important as they are a main way to compare hardware.


Well yes, they are good for hardware reviewers. To every Tom, Dick and Harry however, I say they are useless.


----------



## dmw2692004

a couple of dips because of all the programs that i had open, i was also burning a DVD:

SATA 7200RPM Notebook HD:


----------



## Ku-sama




----------



## SirKenin

They are useless for comparing computers, too, because there are no constants.  That's why Tom, Kyle Bennett and Anand are full of crap with their reviews.

The only thing they are good for is measuring improvements of upgrades you have done to your own computer, that's it.  All these useless screenshots posted in here are completely meaningless, not to mention they are done by a shitty program.


----------



## MasterEVC

Archangel said:


> look at the temp.. :/ well, its always been like that, even in the other case.. so i gues either the sensor isnt correctly callibrated, or the HD is just a hot one.


Mine shows a hot temp like that too but I know its not correct. The drive right above it is 21C


----------



## Archangel

Cromewell said:


> Well yes, they are good for hardware reviewers. To every Tom, Dick and Harry however, I say they are useless.




Tom's Hardwarwe review's?  ..


----------



## fade2green514

yessss i hold the record for forum hard drive bandwidth.. aside from burst speed.. take that omega... (pshh the only thing i could beat him in lol). lol i guess it just proves RAID 0 is truly worthwhile, if you dont mind sacrificing a bit of data security.

to tell you the truth, i do notice a big difference in load times for games.. like oblivion...


----------



## kof2000

probably vista has something to do with the fluctuation lol


----------



## Geoff

kof2000 said:


> probably vista has something to do with the fluctuation lol


Probably because Vista is designed for higher performance over XP.


----------



## kof2000

i think it might of gotten higher. but it was ran with the psu i bought from you so those two sata power  are shared on one line lol.


----------



## Geoff

kof2000 said:


> i think it might of gotten higher. but it was ran with the psu i bought from you so those two sata power  are shared on one line lol.



The Vista bench is higher, but I dont think it has anything to do with the power.  Hard drives dont require that much.


----------



## kof2000

but is always a good idea to use seperate power cords that isn't on the same line. especially for video cards.


----------



## Geoff

kof2000 said:


> but is always a good idea to use seperate power cords that isn't on the same line. especially for video cards.



Well obviously for video cards, but usually power supplies dont have enough cables for an individual line to each optical drive, hard drive, and accessories


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

Have no idea what this means..........  help?


----------



## Geoff

It's pretty self explanatory, it shows you the minimum, maximum, and average transfer rate, along with the average time it takes to access data, and what the burst rate is.


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

So in what condition is my hard drive in?


----------



## Burgerbob

My drive is HOT. And its regular SATA, 160GB WD.


----------



## Geoff

bumblebee_tuna said:


> So in what condition is my hard drive in?



Looks like an average SATA drive.  But were you doing something during the test?  because usually you dont see a drop to 1MB/s on SATA drives.


----------



## bumblebee_tuna

[-0MEGA-];515926 said:
			
		

> Looks like an average SATA drive.  But were you doing something during the test?  because usually you dont see a drop to 1MB/s on SATA drives.



I don't think I was......  It could have been a program in the background maybe.........


----------



## SirKenin

*How about using real world tests?*  Let's use our brains for something besides a hair farm if we're going to create useless threads.

With the two fastest SATA harddrives on the planet:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2101

The conclusion?



> ottom line: RAID-0 arrays will win you just about any benchmark, but they'll deliver virtually nothing more than that for real world desktop performance. That's just the cold hard truth.



Case closed.  You might as well give up while you're still behind.


----------



## ADE

Hay, I haven't read all the posts but someone do one with a 3GB/s HDD.


----------



## Cromewell

> Hay, I haven't read all the posts but someone do one with a 3GB/s HDD.


I did one already and Omega quoted it with his 1.5 for a comparison http://www.computerforum.com/514387-post20.html


----------



## ADE

What was the name for that one?


----------



## Cromewell

What do you mean? They were identicle 320GB seagate drives.


----------



## Boomer

Old thread, but there are a lot of nice benchmarks in here.....lets keep it going.

here is my raptor drives in RAID 0:






here is my WD 200gig media drive:






and finally here is my laptop drive:


----------



## kof2000

80gb 5400rpm 2mb ata100




74gbx2 10k 8m raid 0 sata150




single raptor x 10k 16m sata150




single 320 16m sataII


----------



## Cromewell

What is wrong with your ATA/RAID controller(s) and/or drives? Those are huge dips.


----------



## Geoff

Heres my latest after setting up my RAID 0 array:


----------



## Kesava




----------



## Geoff

Overall i'm very happy with my RAID 0 setup.  It almost doubled in average transfer rate speed compared to others and about 1/3 faster then a single 320GB SATAII 16MB drive.  It also seems to be more steady, unlike the single drives which tend to creep downwards in the HD benchmarking tests.


----------



## MatrixEVO

Haha, I outperformed you Geoff (except for min. transfer)...

This is while running Vista Ultimate 64 (thanks Geoff ):


----------



## Geoff

MatrixEVO said:


> Haha, I outperformed you Geoff (except for min. transfer)...
> 
> This is while running Vista Ultimate 64 (thanks Geoff ):



Wait until I remove the jumpers and see what happens


----------



## MatrixEVO

[-0MEGA-];827813 said:
			
		

> Wait until I remove the jumpers and see what happens



Haha, we'll see.


----------



## Geoff

MatrixEVO said:


> Haha, we'll see.


I dont feel like taking everything out of the case to access them, so i'll do it when I switch cases.


----------



## MatrixEVO

[-0MEGA-];827913 said:
			
		

> I dont feel like taking everything out of the case to access them, so i'll do it when I switch cases.



So what were the results?

Here's another of mine. Maybe the Service Pack helped it's performance, and/or the quad core as opposed to the dual core I had.

Min - 70.5 MB/s
Max - 151.1 MB/s
Ave - 121.1 MB/s

Access Time - 13.1 ms
Burst Rate - 153.3 MB/s
CPU Usage - 1.8%


----------



## ThatGuy16

fancy raid settups .. i might get another 320gb for raid later on
Im surpised how well it held up, no huge spikes, fairly even all the way to the end

look at that access time  lol


----------



## MatrixEVO

ThatGuy16 said:


> fancy raid settups .. i might get another 320gb for raid later on
> Im surpised how well it held up, no huge spikes, fairly even all the way to the end
> 
> look at that access time  lol



I love the RAID setup. It's simple because Windows recognizes it as one big 640GB drive, so I don't have to split up files to one or the other drive. It's also very fast as you can see.

Is your Seagate 320GB the 16MB cache 7200RPM version? If it is, it's the same as I have. You really should get another, they were $60 at Best Buy on Black Friday, so I grabbed me some gems. There was no need to manually load a driver while using Vista as well.


----------



## Geoff




----------



## Kornowski

Is this good;






?


----------



## Geoff

Kornowski said:


> Is this good;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?


For a single drive, yes it's fine.


----------



## Kornowski

Yay 

lol, Fine, or good?


----------



## ThatGuy16

MatrixEVO said:


> I love the RAID setup. It's simple because Windows recognizes it as one big 640GB drive, so I don't have to split up files to one or the other drive. It's also very fast as you can see.
> 
> Is your Seagate 320GB the 16MB cache 7200RPM version? If it is, it's the same as I have. You really should get another, they were $60 at Best Buy on Black Friday, so I grabbed me some gems. There was no need to manually load a driver while using Vista as well.



This is the one i have "Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3320620AS (Perpendicular Recording Technology) 320GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache"

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148140

I was going to get another for RAID, but seeing that i dont need the space.. and am wanting a new mobo/cpu shortly


----------



## WhiteFireDragon

this is an IDE 160GB in an external enclosure connected by USB to the comp. it's turtle slow but has a very constant line


----------



## Geoff

WhiteFireDragon said:


> this is an IDE 160GB in an external enclosure connected by USB to the comp. it's turtle slow but has a very constant line


Blame that on the max throughput of USB (20-25MBps)


----------



## MatrixEVO

Check out my 512mb USB flash drive:


----------



## WhiteFireDragon

i beat all you guys. here's the fastest benchmark 





ok seriously this is from my 10 year old laptop. it was so slow... after i saved the screen shot, i took it to my desktop by flash drive to upload


----------



## Geoff

WhiteFireDragon said:


> i beat all you guys. here's the fastest benchmark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok seriously this is from my 10 year old laptop. it was so slow... after i saved the screen shot, i took it to my desktop by flash drive to upload



wow, that's the slowest benchmark i've ever seen, haha.


----------



## zer0_c00l

*Wdc 160 Sata*


----------



## oscaryu1

*Crosses fingers*


----------



## WhiteFireDragon

how come generally, the trend is that most of them decrease in performance near the end of the benchmark?


----------



## newguy5

is this any good?


----------



## WhiteFireDragon

you have a few low spikes at the beginning. lol were you clicking on stuff right when it started?


----------



## newguy5

WhiteFireDragon said:


> you have a few low spikes at the beginning. lol were you clicking on stuff right when it started?



no, that's just what it did...that odd?


----------



## mep916

Raptors:






1TB Hitachi:


----------



## Geoff

WhiteFireDragon said:


> how come generally, the trend is that most of them decrease in performance near the end of the benchmark?



I believe it has to do with using the onboard SATA/IDE controller.  And a few of the RAID setups have dips as well, although mine was pretty consistent.


----------



## Cromewell

It's the performance across the disk. It worse as you move from the outside edge to the inside edge of the platter.


----------



## newguy5

what does this say about my hard drive?


----------



## Geoff




----------



## bubblescivic

74gb raptors in RAID 0:





750gb Seagate 7200.11 16mb cache:





Specs of Computer Used in test:
C2Q E8400 @ 4.0ghz 
Scythe Infinity HSF
2gb G.Skill 2GBHZ
Gigabyte G33M-DS2R 
eVGA 8800GT 512mb Superclocked
2x74gb WD Raptors in RAID 0 128k stripe
750gb Seagate 7200.11 16mb cache
OCZ Powerstream 520w

and here is my current number 1 computer:





specs:
C2Q E8400 @ 4.05ghz
Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme
2gb G.Skill 2GBHZ
Gigabyte GTX 260 
2x300gb Velociraptors in RAID 0 128k stripe
1tb WD SATA Green Power (untested)
Seasonic M12 700w 4x18A


----------



## funkysnair




----------



## oregon

I just did it, but for some reason my computer crashed seemingly right after the test finished. Anyone else have that problem? 

I did see my results though: 68MB average and 15ms response on my Seagate 250.


----------



## Geoff

I get a higher average transfer rate then a 74GB Raptop


----------



## bubblescivic

[-0MEGA-];1052191 said:
			
		

> I get a higher average transfer rate then a 74GB Raptop



that's before a couple of promise or areca controller cards come in =X hopefully i can afford them in a week. do you have aim omega?


----------



## MBGraphics

Ive never seen this before, it's pretty neat 

How does this look?


----------



## Geoff

bubblescivic said:


> that's before a couple of promise or areca controller cards come in =X hopefully i can afford them in a week. do you have aim omega?


I care more about gaming performance then HD performance though, lol.

And I do have AIM, but I haven't been on for about a year, lol.


----------



## funkysnair

[-0MEGA-];1052191 said:
			
		

> I get a higher average transfer rate then a 74GB Raptop



its the access time i was bothered about 

but my times are better than yours are they not? not sure how the numbers work-lower the better?


----------



## Geoff

funkysnair said:


> its the access time i was bothered about
> 
> but my times are better than yours are they not? not sure how the numbers work-lower the better?


Yes, lower the better.  Yours is lower because you have a 10K RPM drive.


----------



## bubblescivic

[-0MEGA-];1052274 said:
			
		

> I care more about gaming performance then HD performance though, lol.
> 
> And I do have AIM, but I haven't been on for about a year, lol.



i'm the total opposite, i have high caliber hardware but a mid-level graphics card. the only game i play seriously enough to care about it Counter-Strike:Source so i don't really need to worry about system specs, i mean my laptop can play it at max settings.


----------



## funkysnair

[-0MEGA-];1052824 said:
			
		

> Yes, lower the better.  Yours is lower because you have a 10K RPM drive.



cool i was gonna get angry as i bought that drive to be faster lol... if i bought it and it was getting pawnd by 7200rpm drives i would put it on ebay!

i know there will be a couple out there as technology moves on so fast


----------



## vix

Damn!  I redid my RAID array with 4k clusters and my numbers dropped!


----------



## WeatherMan

>


We both have the same drives


----------

