HD Tune Results

Rroff · 5 Jun 2009 at 18:17

£80, 1Tb space, 212MB/s average read... IMO that stacks up pretty well compared to SSD.

miniyazz · 5 Jun 2009 at 19:11

Rroff said:
£80, 1Tb space, 212MB/s average read... IMO that stacks up pretty well compared to SSD.

Lol SSD speed (snappiness) is due to IOPS/access times, not read/write speeds.. but you knew that right?

Rroff · 5 Jun 2009 at 19:45

For raw read/write performance tho it stacks up quite well... obviously its not going to have the access times and IOPS isn't going to make that much odds on a desktop system - more a consideration in workstation/server environments.

miniyazz · 6 Jun 2009 at 01:12

Rroff said:
For raw read/write performance tho it stacks up quite well... obviously its not going to have the access times and IOPS isn't going to make that much odds on a desktop system - more a consideration in workstation/server environments.

On the contrary, random IOPS is where performance lies for any OS due to the inherently random nature of data access. Sequential IOPS (i.e. sequential read/write performance) is useful only for accessing (transferring) large quantities of moderate-large files.

leexgx · 6 Jun 2009 at 04:16

i agree with mini, (Rroff) my SSD in my system is most likely faster then your RAID setup, data rate is not every thing, its the access times that do it (and seek is 0.1ms on SSD)

only need data rate when messing with big files, like 5gb or so (as your system is only just about matching an fast data rate of an SSD any way)

but it is far cheaper

and a lot more space, but for OS games and programs you want the SSD for that any thing els HDD for now

Rroff · 6 Jun 2009 at 10:57

I'm not using it as an OS drive.

Most desktop users aren't gonna be pushing the drive enough that the IOPS difference has any major impact, the low seek time makes them good for an OS drive in that respect aslong as the drive handles small files ok. Infact once you start filling up most SSD drives they can be slower for an OS drive than a fast mechanical HDD.

Anyhow back to my original point, with the price and storage space advantages coupled with the raw read performance that HDD combo stacks up well against SSD.

=VTA=MANFACE · 19 Sep 2009 at 17:42

I have two in my system,

Sammy F1 750.

VelociRaptor 300GB

mjones1 · 19 Sep 2009 at 18:01

How do i get rid of these spikes in my samsung f2 eco 500gb?

=VTA=MANFACE · 19 Sep 2009 at 18:48

mjones1 said:
How do i get rid of these spikes in my samsung f2 eco 500gb?

Defrag ?

AbsenceJam · 19 Sep 2009 at 19:41

mjones1 said:
http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo206/thatkrazykid/HDTune_Benchmark_SAMSUNG_HD502HI.png[/IMG

How do i get rid of these spikes in my samsung f2 eco 500gb?[/QUOTE]

The spikes are where the disk is being used or when there's a jump in CPU use.

Walter Sobchak · 19 Sep 2009 at 22:01

defrag has to be worth a go

AbsenceJam · 20 Sep 2009 at 00:55

Defragmenting won't make a difference to benchmarks.

Sylver123 · 20 Sep 2009 at 03:43

Do these results look ok for a Samsung F1 1TB???

Thanks for responding.

McstylisT · 20 Sep 2009 at 21:56

Here are my current entries. I have 3 internals and 1 external. Will add the external at a later date.
The WD unit is the OS drive. The Samsung and Maxtor are storage only.

First : Western Digital 1TB Cavair Green 32MB Catch

Second : Samsung F2 1.5TB Eco Green 32MB Catch

Third : Maxtor Diamondmax22 500GB 32MB Catch

Sylver123 · 22 Sep 2009 at 04:20

Can anyone please answer my question above???

Thank You!

LeJosh · 22 Sep 2009 at 07:26

Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB 16MB cache.

I'm fairly chuffed with those results.

Guest2 · 22 Sep 2009 at 10:02

Sylver123 said:
Can anyone please answer my question above???

yes. apart from that huge spike

Sylver123 · 22 Sep 2009 at 22:40

Guest2 said:
yes. apart from that huge spike

What can cause a spike like that to happen at the start of the test, because I seem get that same spike every time???