• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Post your HDD and SSD Speeds!

S

satindemon4u

Joined
Oct 13, 2010
Messages
1,113 (0.21/day)
System Specs
System Name Desktop
Processor Intel Core i5 6600k
Motherboard Asus Z170-E
Cooling Cooler Master 212 Evo
Memory 16 GB Ballistix DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1060
Storage 120GB OCZ Vector SSD & 1TB Western Digital Black
Case Rosewill
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply 630w Raidmax Hybrid 2 RX-630SS
Mouse Logitech G402
Keyboard Rosewill Mechanical
Software Windows 10
SSD TESTERS:When testing use HDTune! - Thanks cadaveca
HDD TESTERS: If you could also use HDtune that would be great. With the results from ATTO 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 ATTO test
Name of your HDD or SSD
Simple specs of your HD or SSD

Note: Both tests do not need to be done.

I'll start...

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB
betterHD.jpg


HDTune2.jpg

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


  1. Samsung SM951 128GB - 1783 - 2642 - 2212.5 - RejZoR (NOTE: This drive is setup to excel in READ speeds, not write)
  2. Crucial MX200 500GB – 503 -517 – 510 – xkm1948
  3. Mushkin Triactor 240GB – 472.9 – 510.6 –491 - Komshija
  4. Crucial M4 256GB – 315.2 – 526.0 – 486.1 Psychoholic
  5. Kingston HyperX 240GB - 354.4 - 512.7 - 481.2 khemist
  6. OCZ vertex 3 120GB SSD - 306.5 - 503.7 - 466.4 rfowler30
  7. SanDisk 240GB SSD – 410.6 – 462.3 – 453.4 Octopuss
  8. Crucial M4 64GB SSD – 323.3 – 424.8 – 403.7 ChristTheGreat
  9. Samsung 840 Evo SSD - 21.7 - 553.3 - 384.1 - P4-630
  10. Patriot Pyro 120GB –375 – Caring1
  11. Sandisk X400 256GB –360 – Caring1
  12. Lite-On 256GB SSD - 15.3 - 525.0 - 339.1 P4-630
  13. Corsair Force 3 60GB SSD - 16.4 - 457.1 - 329.9 LifeOnMars
  14. Samsung 840 EVO 500GB – 133.2 – 389.2 – 327.1 VulkanBro
  15. Crucial C300 64GB - 255.2 - 334.8 - 322.6 bogmali
  16. Kingston SVP200 120GB – 152.2 – 379.7 – 309.4 BATOFF
  17. OCZ Vertex3 120GB – 157.1 – 352.2 – 283.6 VulkanBros
  18. OCZ Agility 3 120GB – 138.8 – 402.1 – 283.4 Laurijan
  19. Kingston HyperX 120GB 229.6 – 354.8 – 278.4 AlienIsGOD
  20. Crucial m4 128GB - 225.3 - 249.5 - 244.2 Inioch
  21. Patriot Pyro 60GB - 159.7 - 269.5 - 233.9 newlife
  22. Corsair 128GB SSD - 224.2 bogmali
  23. OCZ Agility 3 120GB – 141.0 – 229.6 – 201.9 TheOne
  24. Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD 145.7 - 218.0 - 199.5 - Live OR Die
  25. Kingston SHFS37A120G 154.4 – 206.6 -190.7 – Derek12
  26. OCZ Agility 3 60GB – 99.9 – 237.2 – 176.2 Dos101
  27. INTEL 60GB – 134.5 – 167.1 – 156.2 XSI
  28. Kingston 24GB – 4.8 – 284.7 – 148.2 Arjai
  29. Kingston SSDnow 120GB –140.6 – Derek12


SSD's in RAID


  1. 2x Samsung 840 120GB Non-EVO RAID 0 – 972.3 – 1072.8 – 1061.8 freakshow
  2. 2x 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAXIOPS in RAID 0 - 605.9 - 1058.0 -
  3. 1013.6 15th Warlock
  4. Name of SSD's not given. - 972.9 - 999.0 - 981.0 - renz
  5. Corsair GT 120GB RAID 0 – 952.0 CrackerJack
  6. OCZ Vertex 5 in RAID 0 - 777.8 Wrathier
  7. OCZ SSD 118GB x2 in RAID0 - 252.1 - 702.6 - 670.2 Winston 008
  8. 2x Agility 3 in RAID 0 on a Rocket RAID 640 PCIe 4X - 335.1 - 695.2 - 633.7 Steevo
  9. 2x Agility 3 120GB in RAID 0 – 382.9 – 1038.1 – 623.7 mightysi
  10. 4x Microcenter 64GB SSD's (redbadged ADATA S599) in RAID0 -542.1 - 635.6 - 602.0 - Arctucas
  11. Intel Raid 0 256GB - 525.6 - 613.9 - 597.5 – Arctucas
  12. 2x Samsung 850 1TB – 458.8 – 674.5 –591.3 – yotano211
  13. Intel x-25M in RAID 0 - 448.4 - 514.6 - 509.3 AsRock
  14. 2x OCZ vertex 2 60GB - 353.1 - 522.8 - 451.5 Arrakis+9
  15. Pair of Patriot Inferno SSD's in RAID-0 - 15.4 - 446.3 - 295.8 JATownes
  16. 2 Vertex 3 120GB in RAID 0 - 254.7 - 318.2 - 281.7 Soup

PCIE Drives

  1. Samsung 950 Pro 500GB –2600– no1yak
  2. Samsung 950 Pro 256GB – 1138.4 – 1200.6 – 1158.7 – xvi
  3. Intel 750 PCIE 400GB –627 –Arrakis+9
  4. Intel 750 PCIE 400GB –580 – aldo11061979
  5. Samsung 850 Pro 512GB –550 – P4-630


PCIE in RAID

1. 2x Samsung 950 Pro 256GB –3200 – xvi



DDR2 RamDisk
600mb partition – 2535 satindemon4u (me)


DDR3 RamDisk


  1. 4GB RAMDisk – 9592 Arctucas
  2. 4GB Cache on a 200gb partition – 7249 johnspack
  3. Samsung Green 30nm DDR3 - 6462.5 Laurijan
  4. 3GB Ramdisk - 3450.7 - 6466.2 - 6169.1 newlife
  5. Ramdisk – 2488 - CrackerJack
  6. 3GB Ramdisk – 2328 Morgoth
  7. 500GB HDD - 1979 Morgoth



HDD's in RAID


  1. 6x Velociraptor’s – 628.4 – 984.7 –886.6– kwikgta
  2. 4x Samsung F3 500GB RAID 0 - 281.2 - 537.0 - 442.1 Maban
  3. 4*1 TB Spinpoint F3 HDD's in RAID 0 in 500GB partition - 320.5 - 446.2 - 396.2 HTC
  4. 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD's in RAID0 192.4 - 278.1 - 234.1 Millennium
  5. 3 x Seagate Savvio 10k.2 SAS in RAID0 146GB each - 131.7 - 246.2 - 202.2 repman244
  6. 2 x WB 320gb HDD in Raid 0 – 137.1 – 213.9 – 194.1 Necromancer713
  7. AMD 2+0 Stripe/RAID0 497GB - 93.9 - 220.1 - 161.5 Romeopp
  8. WD Raptor 150GB and WD Velociraptor 150GB Raid 0 Sata 3GB/s – 74.3 – 158.4 – 131.0 jgrahl
  9. 2 x Seagate Cheetah 10k.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0 - 77.2 - 151.3 - 121.2 repman244
  10. 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 80GB in RAID0 - 62.9 - 139.1 - 110.4 repman244
  11. Seagate Intern Barracuda 500GB in RAID0 - 197.3 Wrathier
  12. 2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 250GB in RAID0 - 22.6 - 102.8 - 83.8 FordGT90Concept
  13. 2 x Seagate Cheetah 10k.7 Ultra320 SCSI 73GB in RAID0 - 77.2 - 151.3 - 121.2 repman244
  14. 2x Samsung Spinpoint M9T 2TB – 54.3 – 121.8 –93.5 – yotano211


HDD'S


  1. Not sure, took the fastest test - 15.5 - 387.1 - 214.1 theoneandonlymrk
  2. Toshiba X300 4TB –194.8 - Komshija
  3. Seagate Barracuda 3TB – 146.6 – 207.1 – 180.8 - Jetster
  4. Seagate 7200.14 1TB – 98.6 – 222.7 – 176.9 - 0x00000007b
  5. Seagate ST1000DM003 1TB – 96.1 – 203.7 –164.0 –satindemon4u (Me)
  6. Seagate Barracuda 2TB – 89.4 – 197.0 – 159.8 – Lunat!c
  7. Western Digital Black 5TB (newer edition) – 84.7 – 201.6 – 151.0 – xkm1948
  8. Hitachi Ultrastar 15K450 SAS 450GB - 95.8 - 154.1 - 132.2 repman244
  9. WDC WD20EZRZ – 96.2 – 156.5 –129.0 – Derek12
  10. Samsung F4 320GB 78.5 - 151.0 - 122.4 Tatty_One
  11. Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB - 107.4 - 134.9 - 121.1 - RejZoR
  12. Western Digital 06000 600GB - 84.8 - 139.1 - 118.0 rfowler30
  13. SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 2TB - 67.0 - 147.7 - 116.3 Me
  14. SAMSNG Spinpoint F3 1TB – 69.6 – 145.1 – 116.1 mightyse
  15. Hitachi Deskstar 7k3000 2TB - 70.7 - 152.2 - 115.8 newlife
  16. Western Digital Green WD20EARS 2TB - 66.3 - 147.7 - 114.4 Silkstone
  17. Samsung HD502HJ – 68.6 – 139.0 – 111.5 0x0000007b
  18. Samsung Spinpoint F3 500GB - 55.4 - 146.6 - 111.5 Jetster
  19. Western Digital Black 640GB - 78.5 - 136.4 - 111.2 LifeOnMars
  20. Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB - 9.7 - 142.5 - 111.0 arnoo1
  21. Seagate Barracuda Green 2TB - 59.0 - 147.6 - 109.7 - repman244
  22. Samsung F3 2TB - 18.2 - 126.9 -108.4 JATownes
  23. Samsung EcoGreen F4 2TB - 63.3 - 142.0 - 108.3 Jetster
  24. Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB – 51.3 – 134.0 – 105.1 stefanels
  25. ST3205318AS 250GB - 65.8 - 127.5 - 105.0 Romeopp
  26. HGST 1TB 7200rpm – 64.3 – 134.7 – 104.0 - xvi
  27. Toshiba MBD2147RC SAS-2 (6 GB/s) 146GB - 74.4 - 127.3 - 103.9 repman244
  28. SAMSUNG HD502HJ 500GB - 5.2 - 134.4 - 103.5 Silkstone
  29. Western Digital Black 500GB Sata 3 – 62.9 – 138.1 – 102.4 james888
  30. Western Digital WD5000 500GB - 58.1 - 126.8 - 101.5 Specks
  31. Seagate 500GB 7200 – 56.2 131.4 – 101.3 BarbaricSoul
  32. HDD1(ST3160813AS) 160GB 3.5 – 125.1 – 99.0 Blue-Knight
  33. Western Digital WD5000 500GB - 57.1 - 118.6 - 95.7 Romeopp
  34. Seagate Momentus XT 750GB – 57.2 – 122.1 – 94.8 VulkanBros
  35. 1 TB Spinpoint F3 - 52.5 - 116.5 - 93.0 HTC
  36. Seagate 1TB - 2.8 - 117.1 - 90.6 JATownes
  37. Seagate 320GB SATA - 82.1 bogmali
  38. Western Digital WD2500 250GB - 49.1 - 101.6 - 81.7 Silkstone
  39. Toshiba 500GB 7200rpm – 44.5 – 98.7 – 75.1 repman244
  40. Western Digital Green Cav. 500GB - 43.0 - 91.3 - 72.8 de.das.dude
  41. Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB - 54.1 - 81.2 - 70.0 - repman244
  42. Toshiba MK3265 320GB - 43.5 - 88.0 - 67.8 Derek12
  43. Toshiba MK3265GSX – 8.2 – 89.9 –65.0 – Derek12
  44. WDC WD2500BEVT – 40.4 – 82.4 –64.5 – Derek12
  45. Samsung 500GB – 36.8 – 78.7 – 62.1 XSI
  46. Seagate ST3320620AS 320GB - 39.4 - 69.7 - 61.8 bogmali
  47. Western Digital Scorpio Blue 250GB - 37.7 - 65.9 - 51.8 - Derek12
  48. P4 Northwood PATA 160GB - 25.0 - 55.5 - 43.8 Completely Bonkers (LOL)
  49. HDD0(ST380215A) 80GB – 21.4 – 30.7 – 30.4 Blue-Knight



*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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.
 
Added to first post. Thank you good sir!
 
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
 

Attachments

  • Epic Disk Speed.jpg
    Epic Disk Speed.jpg
    164.7 KB · Views: 1,842
A few of mine

Samsung - Main os drive (hence the big dips in speed)
HD502HJ.jpg


2tb western green - media drive
WD20EARS.jpg


250gb WD - Used as extra storage
wd2500aajs.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here is my main drive for everything

hdtune.jpg
 
Main drive

Capture003.jpg

Capture016695.jpg



Is a Toshiba MK3265GSX, laptop HDD in a desktop computer, 320GB, 8 MB buffer, 5400RPM, SATA II.
 
Last edited:
took this off my hdd, dont know if there too impressive but i thought id contribute to this forum, seemed interesting.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled3.jpg
    Untitled3.jpg
    171.4 KB · Views: 1,249
Last edited:
hd250gbreadwrite.jpg

hd500gb.jpg

hdtunebenchmarkamd20strz.png
 
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.
 
erocker said:
FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
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.
 
Maban said:
I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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

View attachment 43565
 
Last edited:
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
wdcavairblack.jpg
 
Here is my pair of Patriot Inferno SSDs in RAID-0:

SSD Bench.jpg


1TB Seagate for Data:

Seagate HDD Bench.jpg


2TB Samsung F3 for Media:

Samsung 2TB Bench.jpg
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Thanks. It's not the fastest, but it is quick enough for my purposes.

satindemon4u said:
Boot time with your SSD's?
Click to expand...

Probably 20-30 seconds or so. I've never really timed it, as it usually stays running all the time.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
EarthDog said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

I also experienced this as well. A non-raid setup is definitely quicker to boot. Mine is about 30 seconds to the desktop.
 
Egad.
 
EarthDog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top