- Feb 20, 2019
- 5,954 (3.79/day)
|System Name||Bragging Rights|
|Processor||Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz|
|Motherboard||It has no markings but it's green|
|Cooling||No, it's a 2.2W processor|
|Video Card(s)||Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)|
|Storage||32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3|
|Display(s)||10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz|
|Audio Device(s)||Apparently, yes|
|Power Supply||Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger|
|Mouse||MX Anywhere 2|
|Keyboard||Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)|
|VR HMD||Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....|
|Software||W10 21H1, barely|
|Benchmark Scores||I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.|
The only person who wants to argue is you.Anyone want to argue with this?
There's no shortage of forums/redit/review evidence highlighting the shortcomings of SMR, and the multiple successful class action lawsuits against HDD manufacturers for failing to disclose the performance issues of SMR are testament to the fact that SMR has issues. How SMR works is no mystery; It is unable to write a small block of data without erasing and re-writing all the other blocks shingled together in the band of shingled tracks. Write amplification goes from 1x to as much as 64x depending on the workload and for a drive that has a maximum write rate of ~200MB/s, reducing that rate by up to 64x is obviously detrimental to performance in certain situations.
My guess that CDM's test size was the reason clearly wasn't right but I'm not interested in exactly what causes synthetic tests to inaccurately reflect real-world usage. That's why they're called synthetic tests rather than real-world tests. It's not my job to convince you that SMR has pitfalls. The HDD industry and international legal systems have extensively investigated and concluded the disadvantages of SMR. Like all technological compromises, there's nothing wrong with it as long as the compromises are clearly labelled and people can make up their own mind about whether the downsides are worth the decrease in cost/TB.