Curious HDD benchmark speeds

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by psynapse, Jan 14, 2005.

  1. psynapse

    psynapse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    732
    Location:
    Melbourne
    So check this out, on my DFi board i just ran benchmarks through the NVIDIA nForce3 250 built in IDE benchmarking .. thing:rolleyes:. 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?
    :confused:
     
  2. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    100,517

    Burst speed as measured in such benchmarks is meaning less. Important are the disk access time and the sustained transfer rates for read/write.
     
  3. Whisper

    Whisper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,297
    Location:
    Sydney
    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?
     
  4. douver

    douver Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    525
    Location:
    Brisbane
    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: Jan 15, 2005
  5. psynapse

    psynapse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    732
    Location:
    Melbourne
    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 :leet:

    On another note, can anyone comment about performance gains with NCQ enabled drives?
     

Share This Page