Post your HDD Speeds!

[satindemon4u]

UPDATE: Now taking RamDisk tests as well! Please test with HDTune or CrystalMark Note: Speeds taken down are Seq. write speeds.

SSD TESTERS:When testing use HDTune! - Thanks cadaveca
HDD TESTERS: If you could also use HDtune that would be great. With the results from bench32 I have to sit and find your averages. This is not a MUST, just appreciated.
ALL TESTERS:The table of comparisons will now be split into categories. These will be, HDD's, HDD's in RAID, SSD's, SSD's in RAID. This is simply so that someone running one HDD isn't being compared to someone running a couple SSD's in RAID.

Hello all! Recently I posted my old HDD speed for discussion under a post. Afterwards I ordered a new HDD that was recommended to me and then I tested that one and posted it as well. Soon after someone decided to post there speed as well .

So I got an idea. Why not have a thread devoted to showing off your HDD speed! Maybe even your SSD speed

So what do you need to post?

A screenshot of your HD Tune Test
OR
A screenshot of your bench32 test
Name of your HD
Simple specs of your HD

Note: Both tests do not need to be done, but preferred.
Note note: if this needs to be moved, please do so. D:

I'll start...

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB



The following is a list of results from everyone that has posted thus far. In order from fastest average transfer speed, to the slowest.

HDD Name - Minimum Rate* - Maximum - Average - User (min, max, and averages are in MB/sec)

SSD's
Crucial M4 256GB – 315.2 – 526.0 – 486.1 Psychoholic
Kingston HyperX 240GB - 354.4 - 512.7 - 481.2 khemist
OCZ vertex 3 120GB SSD - 306.5 - 503.7 - 466.4 rfowler30
Crucial M4 64GB SSD – 323.3 – 424.8 – 403.7 ChristTheGreat
Corsair Force 3 60GB SSD - 16.4 - 457.1 - 329.9 LifeOnMars
Crucial C300 64GB - 255.2 - 334.8 - 322.6 bogmali
Kingston SVP200 120GB – 152.2 – 379.7 – 309.4 BATOFF
OCZ Vertex3 120GB – 157.1 – 352.2 – 283.6 VulkanBros
Kingston HyperX 120GB 229.6 – 354.8 – 278.4 AlienIsGOD
Crucial m4 128GB - 225.3 - 249.5 - 244.2 Inioch
Corsair 128GB SSD - 224.2 bogmali
OCZ Agility 3 120GB – 141.0 – 229.6 – 201.9 TheOne
Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD 145.7 - 218.0 - 199.5 - Live OR Die
OCZ Agility 3 60GB – 99.9 – 237.2 – 176.2 Dos101


SSD's in RAID
2x 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAXIOPS in RAID 0 - 605.9 - 1058.0 - 1013.6 15th Warlock
OCZ SSD 118GB x2 in RAID0 - 252.1 - 702.6 - 670.2 Winston 008
2x Agility 3 in RAID 0 on a Rocket RAID 640 PCIe 4X - 335.1 - 695.2 - 633.7 Steevo
4x Microcenter 64GB SSD's (redbadged ADATA S599) in RAID0 -542.1 - 635.6 - 602.0 - Arctucas
Intel x-25M in RAID 0 - 448.4 - 514.6 - 509.3 AsRock
2x OCZ vertex 2 60GB - 353.1 - 522.8 - 451.5 Arrakis+9
Pair of Patriot Inferno SSD's in RAID-0 - 15.4 - 446.3 - 295.8 JATownes


DDR2 RamDisk
600mb partition – 2535 satindemon4u (me)


DDR3 RamDisk
4GB RAMDisk – 9592 Arctucas
4GB Cache on a 200gb partition – 7249 johnspack
3GB Ramdisk – 2328 Morgoth
500GB HDD - 1979 Morgoth



HDD's in RAID
4x Samsung F3 500GB RAID 0 - 281.2 - 537.0 - 442.1 Maban
4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDD's in RAID 0 in 500GB partition - 320.5 - 446.2 - 396.2 HTC
2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD's in RAID0 192.4 - 278.1 - 234.1 Millennium
3 x Seagate Savvio 10k.2 SAS in RAID0 146GB each - 131.7 - 246.2 - 202.2 repman244
2 x WB 320gb HDD in Raid 0 – 137.1 – 213.9 – 194.1 Necromancer713
AMD 2+0 Stripe/RAID0 497GB - 93.9 - 220.1 - 161.5 Romeopp
WD Raptor 150GB and WD Velociraptor 150GB Raid 0 Sata 3GB/s – 74.3 – 158.4 – 131.0 jgrahl
2 x Seagate Cheetah 10k.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0 - 77.2 - 151.3 - 121.2 repman244
2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 80GB in RAID0 - 62.9 - 139.1 - 110.4 repman244
2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 250GB in RAID0 - 22.6 - 102.8 - 83.8 FordGT90Concept
2 x Seagate Cheetah 10k.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0 - 77.2 - 151.3 - 121.2 repman244


HDD'S
Not sure, took the fastest test - 15.5 - 387.1 - 214.1 theoneandonlymrk
Hitachi Ultrastar 15K450 SAS 450GB - 95.8 - 154.1 - 132.2 repman244
Western Digital 06000 600GB - 84.8 - 139.1 - 118.0 rfowler30
SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 2TB - 67.0 - 147.7 - 116.3 Me
Western Digital Green WD20EARS 2TB - 66.3 - 147.7 - 114.4 Silkstone
Samsung HD502HJ – 68.6 – 139.0 – 111.5 0x0000007b
Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB - 55.4 - 146.6 - 111.5 Jetster
Western Digital Black 640GB - 78.5 - 136.4 - 111.2 LifeOnMars
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB - 9.7 - 142.5 - 111.0 arnoo1
Seagate Barracuda Green 2TB - 59.0 - 147.6 - 109.7 - repman244
Samsung F3 2TB - 18.2 - 126.9 -108.4 JATownes
Samsung EcoGreen F4 2TB - 63.3 - 142.0 - 108.3 Jetster
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB – 51.3 – 134.0 – 105.1 stefanels
ST3205318AS 250GB - 65.8 - 127.5 - 105.0 Romeopp
Toshiba MBD2147RC SAS-2 (6 GB/s) 146GB - 74.4 - 127.3 - 103.9 repman244
SAMSUNG HD502HJ 500GB - 5.2 - 134.4 - 103.5 Silkstone
Western Digital Black 500GB Sata 3 – 62.9 – 138.1 – 102.4 james888
Western Digital WD5000 500GB - 58.1 - 126.8 - 101.5 Specks
Western Digital WD5000 500GB - 57.1 - 118.6 - 95.7 Romeopp
Seagate Momentus XT 750GB – 57.2 – 122.1 – 94.8 VulkanBros
1 TB Spinpoint F3 - 52.5 - 116.5 - 93.0 HTC
Seagate 1TB - 2.8 - 117.1 - 90.6 JATownes
Seagate 320GB SATA - 82.1 bogmali
Western Digital WD2500 250GB - 49.1 - 101.6 - 81.7 Silkstone
Toshiba 500GB 7200rpm – 44.5 – 98.7 – 75.1 repman244
Western Digital Green Cav. 500GB - 43.0 - 91.3 - 72.8 de.das.dude
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB - 54.1 - 81.2 - 70.0 - repman244
Toshiba MK3265 320GB - 43.5 - 88.0 - 67.8 Derek12
Seagate ST3320620AS 320GB - 39.4 - 69.7 - 61.8 bogmali
Western Digital Scorpio Blue 250GB - 37.7 - 65.9 - 51.8 - Derek12
P4 Northwood PATA 160GB - 25.0 - 55.5 - 43.8 Completely Bonkers (LOL)




*Minimum Rates may not be totally correct. As for the people that test with bench32, I am having an issue pulling the minimum from the pictures. So I instead take the lowest number which comes from the first test within the test.

[erocker]

FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.

[satindemon4u]

Added to first post. Thank you good sir!

[Maban]

Originally Posted by erocker

FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.

I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?

[dajjhman]

This RAMDisk benchmark is a little outdated, I am tweaking my new RAMDisk

my new one is big enough to install games to, but for now starting virtual machines with no boot splashes appearing is nice.

-Jimmy

[silkstone]

A few of mine

Samsung - Main os drive (hence the big dips in speed)


2tb western green - media drive


250gb WD - Used as extra storage

[specks]

Here is my main drive for everything

[Derek12]

Main drive





Is a Toshiba MK3265GSX, laptop HDD in a desktop computer, 320GB, 8 MB buffer, 5400RPM, SATA II.

[cheesy999]

Originally Posted by silkstone

2gb western green - media drive

shouldn't that be 2TB?

[rfowler30]

took this off my hdd, dont know if there too impressive but i thought id contribute to this forum, seemed interesting.

[Romeopp]

[Maban]

If I ever get around to getting the stuff off my F3's, I'll bench all four in RAID 0. That'll be quite something.

[Derek12]

Originally Posted by erocker

FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.

Why? (I can't find on google) i run it on a SSD based netbook from a friend it is bad for SSD?

Many thanks

[satindemon4u]

Nice posts guys! Gonna to gather all of the information and update the first post with slowest speeds, fastest, type of HDD's, averages, all of that good stuff.

[EarthDog]

Originally Posted by Maban

I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?

Its not accurate usually. I foget the exact reasons why 9buffered spot sampling?), but HDTune/HDtach were made for mechanical drives, and not SSD's.

Here you go: Solid State Drive technology uses wear level algorithms to ensure each DRAM modules receives equal usage, but HDD tests tools are designed to sample disk 'sectors' for performance and SSD's don't never read or write to the same sector.

Sequential test tools such as ATTO Disk Benchmark, HD-Tach, HD-Tune, Passmark PerformaceTest , CrystalDiskMark, and AS-SSD are all usable benchmarks, but occasionally report performance inconsistencies because of buffered spot sampling and NAND condition. Additionally, CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD often report much lower sequential read and write bandwidth speeds compared to HD-Tach and HD-Tune, while ATTO Disk Benchmark relies on file size chucks to report bandwidth. The sequential bandwidth speeds reported by CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD are so low they become questionable, while Passmark PerformaceTest, HD-Tach, and HD-Tune reveal very little information about buffer saturation and are prone to NAND condition impacting performance results.

Of the sequential tools, ATTO Disk Benchmark is most preferred because it illustrates bandwidth speed results at varying file size transfers. From my testing for this article and in other projects, along with the results I've seen from the software tools used, I can conclude that ATTO Disk Benchmark has proven itself consistent in recording SSD bandwidth results and doesn't seem to have a preference for faster SSD DRAM cache mechanisms found in some SSDs. The variety of file size chunks that it tests does give a broad picture of bandwidth performance at each level. Although ATTO is not perfect and still uses spot-testing, it's less imperfect for SSD testing than many of the other alternatives.

[theoneandonlymrk]

here are mine done on me sig rig with ATTO bench

ones a 3 disk raid 0 with 3xwestern digi blue 230gb 16mb cache
the others a ocz revodrivex2 120g

Attachment 43565

[arnoo1]

Western Digital Caviar black 2tb sata 3 (6gb's) storage drive
sorry i don't run hd tune
i have a corsair force 3 ssd but does 350mb write 425read instead of 500mb, it's still fast though

[JATownes]

Here is my pair of Patriot Inferno SSDs in RAID-0:



1TB Seagate for Data:



2TB Samsung F3 for Media:

[satindemon4u]

Updating list, NICE speed JA!

Doing math with those tests sucks.
Add them alllll up, divide. Ew.

EDIT: will edit the list again with your third HDD lol. Boot time with your SSD's?

[JATownes]

Thanks. It's not the fastest, but it is quick enough for my purposes.

Originally Posted by satindemon4u

Boot time with your SSD's?

Probably 20-30 seconds or so. I've never really timed it, as it usually stays running all the time.

[satindemon4u]

I see. Nice nice. Well I have heard of people booting at about that time.

What about loading time? As far as logging in for the first time. First time load I guess you could say.

[EarthDog]

Scary thing is I found withOUT a raid array (SSD) I boot faster. With Raid anything you have to load the raidrom/bios thing and because not a tremendous amount of loading comes from the HDD upon boot, it was actually faster in my experience. Granted, not by much, but faster.

With my single Vertex 3 I boot 19 seconds to windows...including post.

[JATownes]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

Scary thing is I found withOUT a raid array (SSD) I boot faster. With Raid anything you have to load the raidrom/bios thing and because not a tremendous amount of loading comes from the HDD upon boot, it was actually faster in my experience. Granted, not by much, but faster.

With my single Vertex 3 I boot 19 seconds to windows...including post.

I also experienced this as well. A non-raid setup is definitely quicker to boot. Mine is about 30 seconds to the desktop.

[satindemon4u]

Egad.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

Its not accurate usually. I foget the exact reasons why 9buffered spot sampling?), but HDTune/HDtach were made for mechanical drives, and not SSD's.

Here you go: Solid State Drive technology uses wear level algorithms to ensure each DRAM modules receives equal usage, but HDD tests tools are designed to sample disk 'sectors' for performance and SSD's don't never read or write to the same sector.

Sequential test tools such as ATTO Disk Benchmark, HD-Tach, HD-Tune, Passmark PerformaceTest , CrystalDiskMark, and AS-SSD are all usable benchmarks, but occasionally report performance inconsistencies because of buffered spot sampling and NAND condition. Additionally, CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD often report much lower sequential read and write bandwidth speeds compared to HD-Tach and HD-Tune, while ATTO Disk Benchmark relies on file size chucks to report bandwidth. The sequential bandwidth speeds reported by CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD are so low they become questionable, while Passmark PerformaceTest, HD-Tach, and HD-Tune reveal very little information about buffer saturation and are prone to NAND condition impacting performance results.

Of the sequential tools, ATTO Disk Benchmark is most preferred because it illustrates bandwidth speed results at varying file size transfers. From my testing for this article and in other projects, along with the results I've seen from the software tools used, I can conclude that ATTO Disk Benchmark has proven itself consistent in recording SSD bandwidth results and doesn't seem to have a preference for faster SSD DRAM cache mechanisms found in some SSDs. The variety of file size chunks that it tests does give a broad picture of bandwidth performance at each level. Although ATTO is not perfect and still uses spot-testing, it's less imperfect for SSD testing than many of the other alternatives.

None of this is an issue if all you are doing is measuring READ speed. It's tests that use WRITE speed that are the problem. HDTune is F-I-N-E as a read test.

You'll find many a Hard-Disk reviewer using HDTune READ tests. Check any review site.