Average times are rated at 4.5ms.
Post your hard drive benchmarks!
- Thread starter Scoobie Dave
- Start date
Average times are rated at 4.5ms.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17696862&page=16
Post 471, Seeks aint as fast as Advertised for some reason, still a far smoother curve than 99% of results I see here. (little slower in Vista64 than XP).
Nothing wrong with 75MB/Sec on a 7200rpm HDD, there aint much they can do to speed them up, but Perpendicular Recording helps as it reads more data with less of a pass of Head(s), without that I dont see them getting any faster.
Now imagine that Tech on a 10k rpm HDD.
Post 471, Seeks aint as fast as Advertised for some reason, still a far smoother curve than 99% of results I see here. (little slower in Vista64 than XP).
Nothing wrong with 75MB/Sec on a 7200rpm HDD, there aint much they can do to speed them up, but Perpendicular Recording helps as it reads more data with less of a pass of Head(s), without that I dont see them getting any faster.
Now imagine that Tech on a 10k rpm HDD.
Last edited:
Seagate have been using perpendicular tech for the last 2 generations of scsi (SAS and Parallel - and 15k 
) - and yes - they are blisteringly quick with access times to die for - if they weren't such a pain to manage I'd upgrade in a flash
Oh how I wish I had the cash...
) - and yes - they are blisteringly quick with access times to die for - if they weren't such a pain to manage I'd upgrade in a flash Oh how I wish I had the cash...
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 136
I was thinking of implementing 2 x 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 for my c drive for speed. However from these tests it looks like 2 x Barracudas are faster. I though Raptors were much faster than the other drives. What am I missing?
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 136
okay after some research it seems that these tests to not take into account latency. So the raptors will spin up a send information more quickly.
The question is which works best as a system drive for normal use and for gaming use?
The question is which works best as a system drive for normal use and for gaming use?
Doesn't look like itI think it will be SAS or Fiber only - I guess the time has come to move along...
That will be very expensive. Two of these drives in RAID 0 could bottleneck a single channel SAS card in theory no? So you'd have to get a dual channel card such as adaptec 3805 which costs a bomb! Then you have to get two sets of cables and that's another fifty quid gone!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 2,273
2 x Seagate 320gb 7200.10 on Intel ICH9R 64KB stripe
Don
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 34,919
- Location
- Oxfordshire / Bucks
Hi
whats "Intel ICH9R 64KB stripe" ?
whats "Intel ICH9R 64KB stripe" ?
Pretty much what you'd expect from those drives.
Cant believe how quite they are totally silent.
