Fastest Hard Drive

  • Thread starter Burnout
  • 37 comments
  • 1,823 views
Burnout

Burnout

2,808
Inspired by conversation in the biggest hd thread, I figured it was only appropriate to have a fastest HD thread, since bigger isn't always better.

To set a level playing field, everyone needs to use the same benchmark; one I believe to be pretty accurate tool and also, more importantly for all intensive purposes, a free tool, is called HD Tach (download).

When you start the program you have two options, since this thread is just for fun, only use the "Quick bench" test.

Let the testing begin:
120GB SATA3.0 WD

(click)
 
I mis-counted earlier. I actually only have 5 disks, not 6...

WD2500JB (very erratic, I'm downloading to this disk currently)


WD2500JD


WD1200JB


The test won't finish on my new external (WD300JB), not sure why, and my other external is with a friend currently.

Mine will be nowhere near the quickest, but they're for mid- to long-term data storage, not lightning quick access.
 
Hmmmm, my laptop was a bit irratical and I'd shut everything down. God it's slow...

 
Here's the Maxtor:


Seagate:


Both are 120GBs with 8mb of cache. The Seagate is SATA 150. Don't pay attention to its burst speed.
 
:lol: Ram drive! Well, the idea of Ram drives are good, your still going to bottle neck on the technology you use to hook it up. Perhaps we will see some exciting stuff with PCIe and Ram drives in the future. For now, Raid 0 with SATA is both cheap (compared to SCSI) and relatively fast.

:cheers:
 
I'm on my laptop right now so I went ahead and ran it on that ...



I'll post back with my desktop speed when I get on it in like an hour or so.

edit:

Raptor:



Maxtor:

 
shocking2tc.jpg


Check it out.

3.7MB/s!!!

I probably should upgrade my computer soon....
 
My external was behaving a bit strangely (unresponsive at times, slow transfer rates etc), so I removed it from the hub and connected it directly to the mobo's USB ports. Behaving much better now and I've just re-run the bench successfully (whereas before it wouldn't complete).



Not a bad result.
 
G.T
Hmmmm, my laptop was a bit irratical and I'd shut everything down. God it's slow...

Click to expand...
This is the Desktop I now usually use:



Quite a large difference to my Laptop (noticable too).
 
This is my Seagate Baracuda 160GB running in IDE...... I dont get why ths highest mine goes is 30mbps when most other peoples are going to 60?? how come?........ the drive is really fragmented and I was sending someone a file over msn (hence the dips), it needs defraging.... atleast the CPU useage is 0% (amd64 3200).

hdtest7il.jpg
 
Leaderboards (Burst Speed):

1. ROAD_DOGG33J (304.3 MB/s)
2. Pako (226.4 MB/s)
3. Flame-returns (169.6 MB/s)
4. Burnout (125.5 MB/s)
5. ALPHA (125.1 MB/s)
6. VTGT07 (119.7 MB/s)
7. MachOne (96.8 MB/s)
8. DARRKCLOUD (89.0 MB/s)
9. G.T (84.7 MB/s)
10. amp88 (79.5 MB/s)
11. Robin (32.6 MB/s)
12. Casio (3.7 MB/s)

------

Average Read Speed:

1. Pako (130.4 MB/s)
2. VTGT07 (64.8 MB/s)--- TIE
2. ALPHA (64.8 MB/s)----- TIE
3. DARRKCLOUD (54.9 MB/s)
4. Burnout (54.6 MB/s)
5. Flame-returns (51.3 MB/s)
6. G.T (50.1 MB/s)
7. amp88 (49.5 MB/s)
8. ROAD_DOGG33J (48.8 MB/s)
9. MachOne (48.6 MB/s)
10. Robin (28.1 MB/s)
11. Casio (3.6 MB/s)
 
Waaaaaay better than I thought!

Some old homebuilt 56GB hd, which I think is from 2001. Too bad my gc doesn't give me any happy surprises. :(


 
I was using a 160Gb SATA drive briefly that I bought from work for cheap but it kicked the bucket so I'm currently using a 160Gb IDE drive for my main PC drive.

Here's my results:



edit: I guy I work with did an experiment last week where he tried IDE drives vs. SATA drive vs. SATA RAID0 just to see what the difference was, using the HD Tach software. It was done using 160Gb 7200rpm Western Digital drives, IDE and SATA. I was surprised that the SATA drives were only 10% faster than the IDE drives and the RAID0 SATA configuration was only 25% faster than a single SATA drive. I assumed it would be close to twice as fast, because I thought that was the whole point.

The results probably aren't that meaningful because we didn't have SATA II drives. But still... I thought the RAID configuration would give more than a ****ty 25% performance boost.


KM.
 

Latest Posts

Back