Samsung F1 Raid 0 Benchmark results

cliffy · 15 Aug 2008 at 23:37

Hi all, I got my Samsung F1 320GB drives today and Raided them both together (Raid0). As it stands i amextremely chuffed with the results

Would like to know if there was a way of just testing the partition i am using as opposed to the entire drive.

TheCenturion · 16 Aug 2008 at 00:05

I'm glad you're happy with your purchase. I hope the speed improvements are worth it, if only i could afford that...

cliffy · 16 Aug 2008 at 00:26

Very happy with it, to be honest i thought these drives were great value for money

goujon945 · 16 Aug 2008 at 00:32

Looks good. Just bought a sammy 1tb. Was always a WD fan but sammy have defo made some damn good drives recently!

platinum87 · 16 Aug 2008 at 00:38

that looks like 80% faster than the single drive nice..

got 320 (1 only) still waiting on delivery... feel like trying out raid for the first time

what diff do you notice between them by themselves and in raid?

cliffy · 16 Aug 2008 at 00:56

Not long finished installation but definately noticed difference in installing programs as well as an improvement in load times. Raid is so easy to do as well its great

DIABLO · 16 Aug 2008 at 11:47

Faster then thoughput then my raid 0 Raptors

though the raptors have faster access.

Mick-1965 · 16 Aug 2008 at 23:12

Rather than create partitions, create logical drives from the intel boot rom. Then you can bench specific parts of the drive.

Also if you want a nice speed boost install Intel Matrix manager 8.2 and it will automatically enable the writeback cache on the drives. Your burst speed should quadruple and you should get a nice increase in sustained tranfer rate also

helmutcheese · 16 Aug 2008 at 23:51

DIABLO said:
Faster then thoughput then my raid 0 Raptors though the raptors have faster access.

Only the new VRaptors are faster, yours still are for SEEKING.

uv · 17 Aug 2008 at 00:32

how many drives is that?

I have two 1TB F1's in raid0, and I don't think my throughput is that high..

*edit*

guess I was wrong

grab the intel matrix storage manager, and switch on Volume Writeback Cache

clocka · 17 Aug 2008 at 00:49

uvmain, the graph is all over the place though, i'd rather have consistant speeds like in the graph for the samsung f1's in raid0 at the top of this thread.

uv · 17 Aug 2008 at 03:04

clocka said:
uvmain, the graph is all over the place though, i'd rather have consistant speeds like in the graph for the samsung f1's in raid0 at the top of this thread.

that'll be because I had utorrent writing to disk at the same time

compare the average read.. 319 MB/s compared to 182MB/s..

I'm in no way trying to gloat, there's people on here with *much* better arrays, but you'd seriously prefer the slower sequential read?

clocka · 17 Aug 2008 at 03:52

and why wouldnt you have utorrent running when doing a benchmark? how about you do another benchmark?

uv · 17 Aug 2008 at 04:23

because I don't care for epeen? I just ran a quick benchmark to see if my read speeds were what I thought, jesus. Sorry for contributing!

John24 · 17 Aug 2008 at 05:56

It`s not about "epeen" as you say, it`s about gaugeing performance of a drive (admitedliy it`s just a guage because real word performance differes from benchmark results) but having consistent banchies is important for fair comparison. Running anything in the background while benchmarking doesn`t produce a true gauge. But at least you contibuted, most people wouldn`t be arsed.

That said, next time I`d say to you do it right, minimise startup prosseses, reboot, wait a few mins for windows to stabilise and then run the bench. The result will be the most accurate and usefull gauge for everyone and your time and theirs will be put to the most use.