HD Tach Benchmarks

[disarmedmeteor]

OKAY EVERYONE!!!

This is the hard drive benchmarking thread. Post your screenies here!

[mandelore]

Heres mine, not the greatest hard drive, does its job well enuff I guess..

[tigger]

mine-
XP


VISTA



same discs

[disarmedmeteor]

you guys have really high burst rates compared to mine.......maybe because my controller is crap and it's SATA1

[DOM]

Is mine anygood ?

disarmedmeteor but look at your Avg. Read its higher then theres

[disarmedmeteor]

Originally Posted by DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E

Is mine anygood ?

disarmedmeteor but look at your Avg. Read its higher then theres

yeah, good point, and your's isn't bad, decent score....

[Dano 00TA]

Hopefully this worked

[Alec§taar]

Last time we did this, for everyone's reference (additional) if needed, here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showth...highlight=Tach

APK WD "Raptor 'X'" 10,000 rpm SATA 1 disks IN RAID 0 Array (via Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM controller (SATA 1 RAID 0 - NOTE the 0% cpu utilization & 8ms seek/access time!)):



& for the heck of it? Here is the results from my CENATEK "RocketDrive" Solid-State 'disk' Ramdrive board (note the 0ns seek/access here):





What you guys are going to note is a few things:

That RAID 0's setups do a BIT better than single disks, & that "perpendicular recording technology" utilizing disks like SEAGATE units, will kick butt on Avg. Read & Sustained/Burst Reads as well - an amazing technology, & one I would LOVE to see combined w/ 10,000rpm rates, for faster seeks/accesses-reaccesses of files on disk.

ALSO, that SATA2 disks on PRT will knock the chocolate out of SATA 1 setups like mine, cache controller driven or not, in the READ areas... but, on CPU usage (ramdisk here) & Seek/Access + CPU usage (I will have competition here though, but not much), my setup WILL take that area.

Writes are an area WE NEVER TESTED BEFORE, either, mind you (in the URL I post above)... keep this in mind.

Disks are a '4 dimensional test' & based on your needs? It matters to ask yourself WHICH, YOU need most... most folks gain off of READ SPEEDS (loading programs, files for data, etc.)... whereas somebody like myself does a LOT of "file generation" writing code, so writes & seek matter to me largely (CPU use is a nice 'side effect' though).

APK

P.S.=> Keep @ it, & post the KIND of disks you guys use, rather than making us 'dig' by going into your profiles & such (provided you even HAVE that data listed there, etc./et al)... apk

[regan1985]

for those who dont know burst speeds tend to be low if you compare 16mb cache to 8mb cache,but dont worry 16mb is better its just the way test r run,burst speeds mean nothing average read and seek times r wot counts

[disarmedmeteor]

I have 2 x 250 GB Samsung Spinpoint SP2504C in a RAID 0 array with a stripe size of 32 K. Which I have been meaning to ask about. Would my sustained data transfer rate increase if I increased the stripe size to 64k or 16k? What is an optimal stripe size to get the most performance out of my hard drives?

[regan1985]

depends on the size of your average file, if you go to defragementer you can see in there, i use 32k

[disarmedmeteor]

well it says my average file size is 4 mb. but i have a lot of movies and tv shows.....so what should my stripe size be?

[Alec§taar]

Originally Posted by regan1985

burst speeds mean nothing average read and seek times r wot counts

This MIGHT be another "exceptions area" though, per the closing of my last post above: If your needs are say, for transferring LARGE files/amounts of data? It may help...



* Like so much in this field? It all depends on what you need to do... & what the "ROI" is for your needs (a lot like how secondary CPU cache can help things like SETI, Folding@Home, Excel work, but do nearly 'diddly' for those concerned primarily w/ gaming (maybe what? 2-7% gains, TOPS??))

APK

P.S.=> You're "dead-on 110% correct" on the stripe size question though, by ALL means, & no 'exceptions noted', lol... apk

[JUDAS3]

we need a top scores list, can you do one please

classic - my new mobo has increased the transfer.

Raid - sata 2 next.

[Alec§taar]

You guys can use the ones from the first HD Tach test I put the URL up for above, if you like... just to save time designing a template @ least!



(To whomever wishes to maintain the chart, I can send you the FULLY edited one, w/ all the formatting & 'bolded' title areas, etc. via attachment, OR email (prefer the former)).

* I will attach it here in a zipfile, use it as you see fit, IF you wish, & this is how they look (broken up by category tested, lacking ONLY write tests, as I noted above, we did NOT perform them):

*** DEMO TEMPLATE CHART, NOT FROM THIS TEST, BUT EARLIER DONE 09/2006 ***

=========================================
(ACCESS/SEEK DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================

• 1. Alec§taar =8.8ms - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

• 2. randomperson21 =12.6ms - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

• 3. giorgos th =12.8ms - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

• 4. tigger69 = 12.9ms - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

• 4. steevo =12.9ms - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

• 5. dumuzi =13.1ms - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

• 6. munz778 =13.2ms - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

• 6. zekrahminator = 13.2ms - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

• 6. _33 = 13.2ms - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

• 7. INSTG8R = 13.4ms - (Seagate 7200.10)

• 8. PVTCaboose1337 =13.5ms - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

• 9. psychomage343 =13.6ms - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

• 9. YiK = 13.6ms - (WD 80GB IDE)

• 9. cdawall =13.6ms - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

• 10. YiK =13.9ms - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

• 11. mikelopez =14ms - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

• 12. Lt JWS =14.2ms - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

• 13. regan1985 =15.3ms - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

• 14. pt = 17.1ms - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

• 15. Wolverine =17.6ms - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

**************************************************
AVERAGE ALL SEEK/ACCESS DATA (20 members): 13.63ms
**************************************************



=========================================
(CPU USAGE DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================

• 1. Alec§taar=0% - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

• 1. YiK =0% - (WD 80GB IDE)

• 1. Wolverine =0% - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

• 2. INSTG8R = 2% - (Seagate 7200.10)

• 2. mikelopez =2% - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

• 2. giorgos th =2% - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

• 2. regan1985 =2% - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

• 2. _33 = 2% - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

• 2. YiK =2% - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

• 2. cdawall =2% - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

• 3. dumuzi =3% - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

• 3. pt = 3% - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

• 3. tigger69 = 3% - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

• 4. steevo =4% - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

• 5. Lt JWS =5% - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

• 5. munz778 =5% - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

• 6. randomperson21 =6% - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

• 7. psychomage343 =7% - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

• 7. PVTCaboose1337 =7% - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

• 8. zekrahminator = 11% - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

**************************************************
AVERAGE ALL CPU USE DATA (20 members): 3.40%
**************************************************



=========================================
(READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================

• 1. dumuzi =345mb/s - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

• 2. tigger69 = 323.2mb/s - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

• 3. _33 = 302.5mb/s - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

• 4. Lt JWS =278.9mb/s - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

• 5. mikelopez = 258.6mb/s - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

• 6. INSTG8R = 241.6mb/s - (Seagate 7200.10)

• 7. Wolverine =224.5mb/s - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

• 8. psychomage343 =212.2mb/s - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

• 9. munz778 =198.2mb/s - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

• 10. randomperson21 =193.8mb/s - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

• 11. PVTCaboose1337 =171mb/s - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

• 12. Alec§taar = 167.1mb/s - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

• 13. giorgos th = 133.8mb/s - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

• 14. regan1985 =122.9mb/s - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

• 15. steevo = 121.4mb/s - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

• 16. zekrahminator =110.7mb/s - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

• 17. YiK = 104.5mb/s - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

• 18. YiK = 94.6mb/s - (WD 80GB IDE)

• 19. cdawall = 91.8mb/s - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

• 20. pt = 84.6mb/s - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

**************************************************
AVERAGE ALL READ DATA (20 members): 189.05mb/s
**************************************************



=========================================
(AVG READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================

• 1. dumuzi =176.8mb/s - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

• 2. munz778 =121.8mb/s - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

• 3. psychomage343 =100.2mb/s - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

• 4. steevo =99.8mb/s - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

• 5. _33 = 99.5ms/s - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

• 6. tigger69 = 97.6mb/s - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

• 7. Lt JWS =95.5mb/s - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

• 8. randomperson21 =92.3mb/s - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

• 9. Alec§taar =65.6mb/s - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

• 10. INSTG8R = 65.3mb/s - (Seagate 7200.10)

• 10. mikelopez =65.3mb/s - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

• 11. giorgos th =61.7mb/s - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

• 12. Wolverine =56mb/s - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

• 13. zekrahminator = 55.2mb/s - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

• 14. PVTCaboose1337 =52.5mb/s - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

• 15. regan1985 =52.2mb/s - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

• 16. YiK =51.8mb/s - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

• 17. pt = 49.4mb/s - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

• 18. YiK = 49ms/s - (WD 80GB IDE)

• 19. cdawall =31.7mb/s - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

**************************************************
AVERAGE ALL AVGREAD DATA (20 members): 76.96mb/s
**************************************************



APK

[Alec§taar]

See the attached zipped text file!

(2kb download, zipped NORMAL zip in WinRar MT 3.62 model, so if it complains if you use Windows native zip facility? Unzip it using WinRar!)



* For whoever wishes to chart this, should you wish to... to save you time building a chart template to maintain.

APK

[disarmedmeteor]

I unfortunately can't devote that much time to making a list, so sorry about this. But if anyone wants to, feel free!

[Alec§taar]

Originally Posted by disarmedmeteor

I unfortunately can't devote that much time to making a list, so sorry about this. But if anyone wants to, feel free!

Been there, done it, on the ScienceMark 2.0 test, The AquaMark 3.0 test, & the HDTach 3.x test noted above...

Trust me - I don't blame you man: IT'S WORK!



* You wouldn't think it, but it is...

pt keeps the ScienceMark one going, & I wish he'd ditch that one & do the AquaMark 3 one instead, because imo? It is a more SOLID overall test of a systems' abilities, not just CPU & MEMORY as ScienceMark is...

AquaMark gauges ALL 3 areas that matter to the most folks here, & that's CPU, Memory, AND Video... what gamers want, & most of these guys are avid gamers!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, the ScienceMark 2.0 test seems to have more of a 'crowd draw' so... there you go! apk

[randomperson21]

hmm.. yea we already have one of these. no reason to have two... thx alec for pointing this out.

and nice chart as well, me like. and that rocketdrive of yours... wowzikesamazing. which is not a word. that uses.. pc133? nice all the same.

[randomperson21]

Originally Posted by Alec§taar

Been there, done it, on the ScienceMark 2.0 test, The AquaMark 3.0 test, & the HDTach 3.x test noted above...

Trust me - I don't blame you man: IT'S WORK!



* You wouldn't think it, but it is...

pt keeps the ScienceMark one going, & I wish he'd ditch that one & do the AquaMark 3 one instead, because imo? It is a more SOLID overall test of a systems' abilities, not just CPU & MEMORY as ScienceMark is...

AquaMark gauges ALL 3 areas that matter to the most folks here, & that's CPU, Memory, AND Video... what gamers want, & most of these guys are avid gamers!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, the ScienceMark 2.0 test seems to have more of a 'crowd draw' so... there you go! apk

one thing i've noticed: we don't really have any 3dm threads here. like massive ones like hdtach and scimark, etc. interesting cuz we're all gamers and stuff... guess we don't really need it because futuremark has orb.



oh yea, @ disarmed.... 300 friday! you comin?

[disarmedmeteor]

Originally Posted by Alec§taar

Been there, done it, on the ScienceMark 2.0 test, The AquaMark 3.0 test, & the HDTach 3.x test noted above...

Trust me - I don't blame you man: IT'S WORK!



* You wouldn't think it, but it is...

pt keeps the ScienceMark one going, & I wish he'd ditch that one & do the AquaMark 3 one instead, because imo? It is a more SOLID overall test of a systems' abilities, not just CPU & MEMORY as ScienceMark is...

AquaMark gauges ALL 3 areas that matter to the most folks here, & that's CPU, Memory, AND Video... what gamers want, & most of these guys are avid gamers!

APK

P.S.=> BUT, the ScienceMark 2.0 test seems to have more of a 'crowd draw' so... there you go! apk

amen to that, i think we should maybe consider a pcmark05 thread or 3dmark06 like randomperson suggested.......those are comprehensive benchies

p.s. randomperson the 300, i'm there! so what time fri?

[randomperson21]

depends... 3dmark 06 tries to do some more comprehensive stuff (cpu, etc), but not a ton. 3dm05 only does gfx. idk about pcmark.

oh yea, there is a 3dm06 thread around somewhere, nobody really cares tho.

[disarmedmeteor]

heh, good point, btw 3dmark also tests the cpu's graphics processing power....

[Alec§taar]

Originally Posted by disarmedmeteor

heh, good point, btw 3dmark also tests the cpu's graphics processing power....

BUT, it has a drawback, & one that affects me, directly - it DEMANDS 1gb of RAM @ least, as a minimum... AquaMark 3, by the same token/by way of comparison?

Does not...



* I lean towards it for OBVIOUS reasons - I have 512mb of RAM & that's it...

APK

[disarmedmeteor]

Originally Posted by Alec§taar

BUT, it has a drawback, & one that affects me, directly - it DEMANDS 1gb of RAM @ least, as a minimum... AquaMark 3, by the same token/by way of comparison?

Does not...



* I lean towards it for OBVIOUS reasons - I have 512mb of RAM & that's it...

APK

you should invest in another 1.5 gb of ram, 512 is really subpar nowadays, and it makes a WORLD of difference in general responsiveness, i myself have only 1 gb but the jump from 512mb single channel to 1 gb dual channel was phenomenal!

just a suggestion!