1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Post your HDD and SSD Speeds!

Discussion in 'Storage' started by satindemon4u, Sep 10, 2011.

  1. satindemon4u

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    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
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    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: Aug 21, 2016
    xvi, Arrakis+9, AlienIsGOD and 3 others say thanks.
  2. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    41,502 (11.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16,885
    FYI do not run HDTune with SSD's as per manufacturer recommendation.
     
    Steevo and Live OR Die say thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. satindemon4u

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    Added to first post. Thank you good sir!
     
  4. Maban

    Maban

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,331
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I remember hearing that, but was any explanation given?
     
  5. dajjhman New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    14 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    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
     

    Attached Files:

  6. silkstone

    silkstone

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    3,311 (1.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Location:
    Vietnam
    A few of mine

    Samsung - Main os drive (hence the big dips in speed)
    [​IMG]

    2tb western green - media drive
    [​IMG]

    250gb WD - Used as extra storage
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2011
  7. specks

    specks New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    441 (0.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Here is my main drive for everything

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Derek12

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    168
    Main drive

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Is a Toshiba MK3265GSX, laptop HDD in a desktop computer, 320GB, 8 MB buffer, 5400RPM, SATA II.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  9. cheesy999

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028 (1.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    629
    Location:
    UK
    shouldn't that be 2TB?
     
    silkstone says thanks.
  10. rfowler30

    rfowler30 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    80 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    took this off my hdd, dont know if there too impressive but i thought id contribute to this forum, seemed interesting.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 11, 2011
  11. Romeopp

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    28 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Maban

    Maban

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,722 (0.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,331
    Location:
    Minnesota
    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.
     
  13. Derek12

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,139 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    168
    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 :)
     
  14. satindemon4u

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    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.
     
  15. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    6,874 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,842
    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: Sep 12, 2011
  16. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,782 (1.58/day)
    Thanks Received:
    757
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    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: May 29, 2012
    More than 25k PPD
  17. arnoo1

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    755 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Location:
    Netherlands
    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
    [​IMG]
     
  18. JATownes

    JATownes

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,066 (0.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    789
    Location:
    Texas
    Here is my pair of Patriot Inferno SSDs in RAID-0:

    [​IMG]

    1TB Seagate for Data:

    [​IMG]

    2TB Samsung F3 for Media:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  19. satindemon4u

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    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?
     
  20. JATownes

    JATownes

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,066 (0.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    789
    Location:
    Texas
    Thanks. It's not the fastest, but it is quick enough for my purposes.

    Probably 20-30 seconds or so. I've never really timed it, as it usually stays running all the time.
     
  21. satindemon4u

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    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.
     
  22. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    6,874 (2.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,842
    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. ;)
     
  23. JATownes

    JATownes

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,066 (0.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    789
    Location:
    Texas
    I also experienced this as well. A non-raid setup is definitely quicker to boot. Mine is about 30 seconds to the desktop.
     
  24. satindemon4u

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,027 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    Egad.
     
  25. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    15,580 (4.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,320
    Location:
    Beaumont, Alberta
    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. ;)
     
    10 Year Member at TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)