Overclockers Australia Forums
OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Specific Hardware Topics > Storage & Backup

Notices


Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!
Search our forums with Google:
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14th January 2005, 11:51 PM   #1
psynapse Thread Starter
Member
 
psynapse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 3095.au
Posts: 728
Default Curious HDD benchmark speeds

So check this out, on my DFi board i just ran benchmarks through the NVIDIA nForce3 250 built in IDE benchmarking .. thing. What surprises me is the burst times, it seems the bigger the drive the slower they get, but the faster the sustained speed gets.


Code:
		burst 	sustained	interface	capacity

maxtor		107	50		ata133		80GB
seagate		84	52		ata100		160GB
western digital	70	57		sata150		200GB
				MB/sec

All with 8MB cache.
Is this just a coincidence?
Should i be concerned with the low burst speed of this WD 200GB Sata drive?
__________________
No, you don't.
psynapse is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 15th January 2005, 12:24 AM   #2
chainbolt
The end is near?
 
chainbolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 81,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psynapse
So check this out, on my DFi board i just ran benchmarks through the NVIDIA nForce3 250 built in IDE benchmarking .. thing. What surprises me is the burst times, it seems the bigger the drive the slower they get, but the faster the sustained speed gets.


Code:
		burst 	sustained	interface	capacity

maxtor		107	50		ata133		80GB
seagate		84	52		ata100		160GB
western digital	70	57		sata150		200GB
				MB/sec

All with 8MB cache.
Is this just a coincidence?
Should i be concerned with the low burst speed of this WD 200GB Sata drive?

Burst speed as measured in such benchmarks is meaning less. Important are the disk access time and the sustained transfer rates for read/write.
chainbolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 5:22 AM   #3
Whisper
Member
 
Whisper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,300
Smile

Its because the larger the HDD the more likely you will have a cache miss which will screw up your burst rates.

Notice the bursts drop with the HDD size?
__________________
Quote:
There's something about philosophy that is at once humanising & utterly human. It's the court of last recourse. When the oracles have failed us, when the saints have grown silent & when god has chosen not to reveal himself. Then we stand back in the dark dark shadows of confusion & fear & ask, "What sort of being am I?" "What kind of life is right for me?" "& how should I govern, or be governed?"
Whisper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 7:25 AM   #4
douver
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 443
Default

my drives

Code:
		burst 	sustained	interface	capacity

maxtor		105.3	59,4		ata133		160GB
western digital	101.8	59.5		sata150		200GB
westerndigital2	101.6	59.6		sata150		200GB
				MB/sec

All with 8MB cache. (and i have 2 200gbs)
soltek s754 nf3 250gb (drivers v2.6)

in reality the bigger the drive is the faster they are because of data density, as your sustained speeds show

the burst is essentially the interface speed, so in theory sata > ata133 > ata100. It seems your sata is slightly below par here, but seeing your sustained speed is alright i wouldnt worry about it seeing thats how fast it is in practice

Last edited by douver; 15th January 2005 at 7:25 AM.
douver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2005, 3:43 PM   #5
psynapse Thread Starter
Member
 
psynapse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 3095.au
Posts: 728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisper
Its because the larger the HDD the more likely you will have a cache miss which will screw up your burst rates.

Notice the bursts drop with the HDD size?
Aah of course man, i didn't even think of that.
That's only 8MB of cache there, so naturally the bigger the drive the less chance data will be in the cache

Heh, I don't usually put any weight in synthetic benchmarks like this, but i'd always heard SATA was considerably faster than PATA. Guess it's only marginal till we start seeing SATA2 with it's (theoretical) 250MB/sec transfer rates

On another note, can anyone comment about performance gains with NCQ enabled drives?
__________________
No, you don't.
psynapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 6:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. -
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Internode!