# *OFFICIAL* HD Database/Benchmark; RAID & Single Drives



## JacKz5o

Well heres my benchie









I got the DFI 6/23/05 BIOS with a Western Digital Caviar WD2500KS-00MJB0 HD

This my first time so if i did something wrong or if im missing something please pm me or post here and i'll add onto


----------



## systemaxd

Might as well update my scores here see attached image stripe and cluster size unknown since i use asus's e-z raid/backup and built the arrary itself i had no choice in what sizes. Also forgot to metion using 2 x 80gb 8 mb cache wd caviar drives being sata 1 interface on a sata 2 board.


----------



## Thundergod989

This is with only 2 of the barracuda's hooked up, I have 2 more (identical) but my psu can't push all 4 of them plus my two scsi drives lol.

The files: les files

and the desktop shot.


----------



## Mr.N00bLaR

Hmm... 4 80 gigs =)


----------



## Chozart

I guess you do..but that sequential read graph looks like the 1908 San Fransisco Earthquake!! Man.....


----------



## Burn

Flat, which is surprising...It keeps up well with larger reads, too.

Hopefully RAID 5 will provide some different results, hopefully unleashing these drives.


----------



## Chozart

Also, Mr.N00bLaR, what's up with that graph?? you have peaks of over 1,000 MB/s in there.. something ain't right there.. yuor burst isn't even that high?


----------



## Thundergod989

has the cache policy set to non-os controlled... so the program can't explicitly set the cache policy...

not difficult to acheive, but its by no means an accurate measure.

a nice stable graph that tapers off towards the end of your array is what you should be seeing, anything else is raid artifacts you're seeing, most likely related to the controller being used.

ps: i own you all for random access time


----------



## B33m3RBOY

Heres my 15000rpm SCSI raid array. Only 2 drives right now. Will be adding 2 more in a month or so. My stripe is 16k with a 8k cluster. I turned the transfer size up to 8182kb instead while I was fine tuning the Stripe/Cluster size for my drives just recently. Went through nearly every combination i could think of (16/4, 16/8, 16/16, 32/....64/....etc). Also included is the 64k stripe/32k cluster benchmark. Srry for the bad pictures. I will make new ones without the resize when I can.

ps. srry thundergod...I now pwn all on Random Access and Full Stroke Access


----------



## Thundergod989

ya but I have 640g, not 74.










Funny/Sad story:

I just bought a new ibm server at work (well 3 of them to be exact...) and it comes with 4x134G ucsi320 drives running at 15k... so I figured, hmm. well whatever i'll put all 4 in raid 0 and boot windows, just for fun to see what it would get before setting it up with its raid 5 array for production. I'm also using a 500$ megaraid U320 adapter card to do it, so it should be the most efficient way to process this.

Now, I install windows, takes like 9 minutes, get into the os, start up hdtach, let 'er rip, and...

118mb/s read speed with a burst of 320? ***.

so now i'm a bit pissed, 'cause a single drive by itself can do that, so I check all the specs, everything looks good, raid is setup with the proper stripe settings... I couldn't figure out what it was ;( I even used the onboard u320 adapter to double check, same thing. The read line was flat across at 118 from start to end.

Any thoughts?


----------



## B33m3RBOY

hehehehehe.....my 2 drives read faster than your 4. Thats funny. Nice burst speed though. Tell me how you got that. I'm kinda pissed myself that even though the adaptec 29320lp-r pci-x raid controller I got negotiates a transfer speed of U320, my burst gets nowhere near 320Mb/sec.

Only thing I can think of is related to your stripe and cluster size. During my own testing, I found that in order to achieve higher burst speeds you should use a 64k stripe. If you want read speed then 16k stripe is best. Try changing the stripe size to 16k and the cluster size to 4k. See if that helps at all.

Only other thing I can think of is you got slow U320 15k SCSI drives.


----------



## Lu(ky




----------



## PROBN4LYFE

nice dude!!!!


----------



## Chozart

Updated the RAID section. Will do the rest tomorrow.

Lu(ky: that quad RAID Raptor array disappoints me a little. I would expect you to beat my quad WD's easily... odd.

Burn: you don't own all in burst speeds


----------



## PROBN4LYFE

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Chozart*

Updated the RAID section. Will do the rest tomorrow.

Lu(ky: that quad RAID Raptor array disappoints me a little. I would expect you to beat my quad WD's easily... odd.

Burn: you don't own all in burst speeds










Highest burst speed then Chozart?


----------



## Chozart

Nope... that would be nettwerk


----------



## Lu(ky

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Chozart*

Updated the RAID section. Will do the rest tomorrow.

Lu(ky: that quad RAID Raptor array disappoints me a little. I would expect you to beat my quad WD's easily... odd.

Burn: you don't own all in burst speeds










Yeah I am still scratching my head on this. I am using the Asus A8N32 for the raid controller. I wonder if I set it up wrong. I feel I am getting the same specs as if 2 HD in a raid -0-







Are you using a PCI slot raid card?


----------



## Chozart

Nope... mine was onboard also.. ULI (my previous Asus A8R32 MVP Deluxe). Your speeds do seem indeed close to two-disk RAID0


----------



## Kramy

Hey, which setting do I use for HD Tach? With the 8MB quick test, I get nearly 370MB/sec burst speed with 4x RAID 0+1 Seagates.

Edit: Ooh..should I have posted in this thread?


----------



## Chozart

Run the long bench, 32MB.


----------



## Kramy

The 32MB test is the same!...









I am loving these Seagates! Bench done on a Biostar TForce 550 with the 2006/09/14 BIOS. That was after a fresh install of Windows XP Home, using stripe size 32. Oddly enough, there was no option for cluster sizes that I could see. Overall this board has been a total pain to set up, since all unattended CDs/DVDs failed, and 8/9 attended installs failed as well. My experience doing unattended installs for nForce 2/4 systems was utterly lost on this board, so I have no plans to try any other RAID settings!









Glad I lucked out though and picked the best stripe size for these drives!


----------



## alexisd

First time run this benches.Look OK?2x 74 gig raptor's.Bios 1009,


----------



## BRISKbaby

I'm using the 1st edition of my BIOS, that's how they're numbered - not by date. I have 3 Seagate 400GB 7200.10 in RAID 5 16MB of cache. I'm not quite sure what the ATTO Disk Benchmark did or how to interpret the results but it's all there.
(If I missed anything please PM me and I'll fix it.)









Attachment 33741


----------



## Taeric

This may prove to be an interesting comparison. I have two Seagate ST3250620AS (250 MB, 16 MB cache, SATA2) drives in RAID 0. In the first setup, they were on an Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (Promise 20378) running a Pentium 730 on a CT-479 adapter. This board is limited to SATA1. The same drives are currently set up on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe (ICH7R) running an e6700. The results are amazingly different. The Dothan rig limited the burst speed to a lowly 114 MB/sec, while the Conroe flies at 417 MB/sec. Average reads are 99 MB/sec vs 129 MB/sec.

Dothan results and Conroe results.


----------



## Chozart

Interesting indeed ::


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Here ya go:

SLI-DR Nvidia stripe 32K 2 x 300Gb Seagate Barracuda


----------



## hanwinting

here is mine








3 x Raid 0 with raptors


----------



## Chozart

The burst speed seems a bit screwy....








Cn you try again and see if it consistently does that.?


----------



## Mootsfox

Heres my two drives. Cpu-z won't fit on my little screen, so I have to post two pictures.

iTunes was running at the time, but it did not change songs, my library is on the 80gb.










*Second screenie with CPU-Z*


----------



## hanwinting

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chozart* 
The burst speed seems a bit screwy....








Cn you try again and see if it consistently does that.?

nope its not screwy
check this link. thats how i did it
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=120184


----------



## Mootsfox

That is really, really awesome. I wanna try that out.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

It appears that, the Intel 965 chipset > nvidia4 at RAID-o arrays. I've pulled about 10mb/s more average and ~40 MB/s burst.


----------



## B33m3RBOY

All hail the 2 disk raid-0 array king









With the spindle delay of 2ms, actual random access time is either 3.4ms or 3.6ms.
I forgot to include in the description that these are 15,000rpm SCSI drives.


----------



## KSIMP88

Here's Mine, I believe the model number is in my sig specs:


----------



## Mhill2029

Here's mine...


----------



## kgkeen101

2 x 250gig Seagates 7200.10 RAID 0 Stripe64. So far I like it a lot.

Kevin


----------



## Mootsfox

Looks great kgkeen101, above 150mb/s at 100gb of reading! I need to go RAID 0 I think


----------



## stevemc

I guess I'll jump in.

I am running 2x7200.10 in RAID-0, however I cannot run them at full SATA-300, but I can only run SATA-150 due to the age of my mainboard. The rest of the specs are in the sig. I also have 2 independent drives, 1x 160GB Maxtor SATA-150, 1x 300GB Maxtor SATA-150 for a total of .96 TB. I have the benchmark scores for those, too, but it is sad compared to my RAID benchmark.

EDIT: CPU Usage on HDTune was 6.2%, that got covered, sorry.


----------



## jcbzhnsr1

Gigabyte-ds3(with ich8 southbridge), 1 gig 5400 corsair c4 ram, 2x raid 0 raptors.


----------



## jcbzhnsr1

^^^^^^my burst rate seems screwy, do it sound right? ^^^^^^


----------



## {core2duo}werd

well here's mine but some times it wil just randomly get better and worse scores mine are never anywhere near the same sometimes they qwill be low one hundreds and others high three hundreds well this is the one i am submiting anyways... RAID 0, 4 seagate baracudas 7200.9 160 gig a piece with 8 MB cache, NV RAID Nforce 4 SLI chipset.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

well here's my RAID 1+0 setup sorry about the wierd screenshot i had to set up my HD tv because my regular monitor wouldn't fit all the stuff on it. anyways these are four seagate 7200.9 baracudas 160 gig a piece with 8 MB cache on my nv RAID controller


----------



## Burn

Got my blazing-fast RAID0 setup going, 01 on the nForce controller provides *no* backup whatsoever, so I am going for pure speed


----------



## tubnotub1

Here is my Raptor Raid 0, they dont seem that impressive compared to some of yalls raids lol.


----------



## noshibby

wooo go P5B deluxe


----------



## noshibby

....if you havent enabled write back cache for intel matrix storage i suggest you do it....


----------



## idunnowutimdoin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noshibby* 
....if you havent enabled write back cache for intel matrix storage i suggest you do it....

What does that do? I haven't even installed that yet. I've only installed the raid f6 floppy driver.

ps. your stats are almost identical to mine, then again our setups are similar.


----------



## Easty

Quote:


Originally Posted by *idunnowutimdoin* 
What does that do? I haven't even installed that yet. I've only installed the raid f6 floppy driver.

ps. your stats are almost identical to mine, then again our setups are similar.

Rigth click the Array in Intel matrix console to see if it's enabled. I think it only makes a difference in raid5?


----------



## noshibby

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Easty* 
Rigth click the Array in Intel matrix console to see if it's enabled. I think it only makes a difference in raid5?

look at the difference between my two screenies, and thats raid 0


----------



## {core2duo}werd

but your average read is slower now


----------



## jcbzhnsr1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *{core2duo}werd* 
but your average read is slower now

correct, I think this may be a glitch, I get the same burst rate, only my highest was 2200 or more. Write-back cache is automatically enabled in my setup. Does anyone know what is causing such a reading? I have tried stock clocks on everything, and I still get the same scores.


----------



## jcbzhnsr1

I'm currently running a 64 stripe, will changing this to a 128 make a difference?


----------



## {core2duo}werd

in HD tach 64 or 32 stripe sizes are usually the best.


----------



## money11465

Burst = 1871 MB/s
Read = 127 MB/s
Random = 13.3 ms


----------



## TheEddie

What stripe size would be best for a pair of WD2500ks?

Stripe is set to 128k now..

My burst is 306mb/s
Read is 106mb's
Random Access is 13.7ms

Are those speed in line?


----------



## coelacanth

My benchies. Pretty standard for 8MB Raid 0 Raptors.

* 2 Western Digital 74GB 8MB cache Raptors (138.49GB)
* nForce4 Ultra chipset (NVRAID Bios 4.84)
* 128K stripe size


----------



## SgtSpike

The link to HDTach 3.0.1.0 is dead? Page not displayed, 404 error and all that.

Oh, and ATTO isn't working for me (I'm running Vista). It says "Cannot open file benchtst.$$$." whenever I click "Start".


----------



## Chozart

This is likely temporarily. Simpli Software is tranferring to a new webserver.
http://www.simplisoftware.com/

I will look into ATTO + Vista.


----------



## RuSo

example pics, not my drives

























I always use this tool to check the (real-time) performance of my disks:

http://www.magicnotes.com/steelbytes/HD_Speed_ENG.zip

(Its definately on my favorite list, i see it as the prime95 for HDD's, if you decide to use it, make sure you have proper cooling on/for your HDD's)

Give in any percentage and it will check that location on the disk, or do a complete 100% check, if there is damaged disk surface (errors) (even if your smart is ok), hdspeed will find it. Also for burst reading testing, if a dip occurres there, then something is seriously wrong with the drive.
It checks: partitions, psychical disks, raid configured disks.
And gives you the performance of the disk(s) in real time....not to be compared with hdtach.....
If you think SATAII gives you 150mb/s data transfer performance, then you'll be in for a surprise when you see the real performance of your disks....lol <- 150mb/s is the theoretical bandwidth of SATAII.
(Example: if you run memory 500mhz it will give you a theoretical bandwith of 8000mb/s, but it will never mean your memory fully utilizes the full bandwidth. memory modules (in my experience) perform better on lower clockspeeds with tighter 1T timings.
For HDD's the buffer,RPM's,and quality of the drive's mechanical sytems make these differences....so a low quality 7200RPM with 8mb cache SATA disk, can be outperformed by a high quality 5400RPM 16mb or even 8mb cache IDE disk.....to put it simple) and you can see the huge performance jump of an raid configuration with this tool.
I do not know this for sure -> but i believe it has the capability to test all the seperate drives in your raid setup too...


----------



## Chozart

That's a nice tool indeed







But not really useful for pure hard drive performance comparison, since with that tool much more comes into play (CPU load, what else do you do on your rig, etc, etc).

See it like this: HDTach compares to superpi one if you compare that tool to Prome95. Thus, for a short snapshot pure speed check, use HDTach, and for long stress test, use this tool.

Very nice find! Good one


----------



## RuSo

thanks...agreed about the cpu/OS loads...







best way to test your drive is always the DOS way, but with windows running in safe mode, this program is the most reliable IMO....


----------



## Chozart

True









I definately will try it out myself.. esp. when I get that trio of SCSI drives running


----------



## Riyad Aliyev

I have a small question, I hope its ok if I'll post it here. Anyways, its really related to this topic, so i think it would be usless to open a new thread, and it seems that everybody following this one.
I have 4 raptors in RAID 0+1 setup, two of them are revision 00NLR0 and the other two are 00NLR1.
What should I expect from these HDD as far as HDTach and another benchies are conserned?

Thanks
Riyad.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

only you running the tests can answer that question with much accuracy.


----------



## Riyad Aliyev

So, i runned HD Tach but ATTO I am having a little bit of issue with it. I hope its ok if I post only one benchie results. Please tell me are these figures ok for raid 0+1 setup o p5n32-e sli. Strip size is 128k, and if somebody can tell me how to check cluster size i could tell that too.

Thanks

EDIT: Just found, cluster size is 4KB. And mannaged to use ATTO.


----------



## svtfmook

here's mine, not really sure what it means, lol.

i'm running RAID 0 on 2 WD 250GB 16MB drives and a 3rd WD 250GB drive for storage.


----------



## zahirshah

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Chozart*


That's a nice tool indeed







But not really useful for pure hard drive performance comparison, since with that tool much more comes into play (CPU load, what else do you do on your rig, etc, etc).

See it like this: HDTach compares to superpi one if you compare that tool to Prome95. Thus, for a short snapshot pure speed check, use HDTach, and for long stress test, use this tool.

Very nice find! Good one











Oh ! great tool Chozart thanks......Thats just a reliable and useful way....

thanks


----------



## charbs152

howcome i get an error everytime i go to use HD Tach?


----------



## CravinR1

FIXED *************

I don't know how low on the rankings I am but here are both my single Seagate Perpinduclar 7200.10 320 gb (on the left) and my RAID 0 (320 gb perps x 2)

128 stripe, not sure on the other


----------



## Rezern

This is my Hitachi RAID0 setup(2 disks), stripe size 128k, cluster size unknown..
Using NvRAID version 1.05 on a Abit Kn8Ultra,nForce4..
Don't think it's to bad to be cheap disks


----------



## Burn

Some HD bench goodness









E6600 Conroe @ 3420mhz/Abit QuadGT Motherboard/Intel ICH8R controller/Team Xtreem DDR2-1000 @ 5-5-5-15


----------



## Quasimojo

E6300 running @ 2.03GHz
ASUS P5B Deluxe
ICH8-R
v1004 AMI BIOS (1-22-2007)
2GB OCZ Titanium PC6400 DDR2

1xWD Raptor 74GB 8MB cache SATA 1.5
2xSeagate Baracuda 250GB 7200.10 16MB cache SATA 3.0

The 2xSeagate drives combine to produce two seperate RAID arrays (1x265GB RAID-0 and 1x100GB RAID-1) using Intel Matrix RAID. RAID-0 strip size is 128k.

Each screen shot depicts one of the RAID arrays compared to the single Raptor 74GB.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *noshibby*


....if you havent enabled write back cache for intel matrix storage i suggest you do it....


Tell me how and i'll try it


----------



## Silviastud

Here's what I am getting. And actually I'm not sure what Raid controller the 680i has. Maybe NF68? I'm a bit confused.


----------



## gonX




----------



## gonX




----------



## CravinR1

I dloaded Intel Matrix Storage Manager and enabled write caching and WOW what a difference:


----------



## Chozart

Updated.

Sorry for the delay









I will get the IDE data back soon also.


----------



## Kluster

Thanks to RuSo for the HD_Speed pointer. It's a great program.

Here's my first entry for consideration. I don't consider it best speeds by far, since 3ware literature says the 9650SE-16ML should be able to get over twice what I'm getting now.









































Edit: New XP Pro 64 benchmarks
















CPU-Z


----------



## Chozart

Some more of mine:

*RAID0:*









*RAID1:*









*Single disk*


----------



## ncsa

Here's another one for the list - strange controller as it does not like all my drives


----------



## alexisd

One more here.
2 WD 16 MB set up 128k,raid 0.


----------



## kennymester

Hitachi 2x 80gb deckstars in raid0 8mb cache w/ 16k stripe


----------



## KloroFormd

Attachment 48428 Old-school 7 year old 20GB Western Digital FTL.


----------



## Ictinike

New RAID 0 Array...

ASUS P5N-E SLI nForce 4 Controller
2 Western Digital - 250g 16mb SATA2
16k Stripe Using NVRAID Utility

Not overclocked ATM on this board but soon so maybe I'll post afterwards but for now here's the initial results.. Not bad compared to my old 250g WD IDE


----------



## Danbeme32

New Raid 0
128k Stripe


----------



## SgtSpike

Raid 0 on my work machine...


----------



## RaCeR123

Nvidia Raid Controller w/128k Stripe Raid 0, 320GBx2 Seagate Barracuda


----------



## MESeidel

Thanks Chozart for linking me here from the mainboard thread ;o)

System:
Abit AB9 Quad GT -- BIOS v13
Core 2 Duo E6420 [EDIT] old CPU-Z showing E6400 [/EDIT]
4x G.E.I.L. 512 MB

All disks on the Southbridge with Intel ICH8R RAID Controller (as well as 1 SATA DVD RW)
Added Sandra to the corner to show Cluster Size

[Screenshot 1]
2x WD Raptor 74 GB, 16 MB
64kB Stripe, 4kB Cluster
RAID0 with:
- C: 20 GB NTFS - windows 2000 -> benched
- E: 118,49 GB NTFS - applications/games

[Screenshot 2]
2x Samsung 160 GB, 8 MB
128kB Stripe, 4kB Cluster
RAID0 with:
- F: 140 GB NTFS - data -> benched
- G: 68,09 GB NTFS - download
- M: 10 GB NTFS - empty
- N: 80 GB NTFS - some backup

looks like the SATA150 interface is a bottleneck to burst speed for Raptors


----------



## Akatsuki No Tobi

For HD Tach benchmarks, when the read speed fluctuates dramatically, does that usually indicate a bad hard drive?

For example, my score below.


----------



## CravinR1

How so? lol, I see you got a .5 average higher (but whats with your ATTO, you're not moving any data looks like)


----------



## USlatin

no wait! 138.3 MB/s


----------



## USlatin

yea... I don't know why... never used ATTO so I am not sure if the fact that the drive is almost empty right now matters... it is only two drives...

btw currently I am using a setup that gives me a higher burst and still holds fast average, but I am still working on it... I want to make sure my data is safe more than gain a MB or two...

enlighten me about ATTO's results and their meaning if you would


----------



## Sreenath

Wow, seems like I won in the single drive department...and I got the cheapest 320GB HD -- a Maxtor DiamondMax (however when i got it, in fine print under the Maxtor Logo, it says Seagate 7200.10







so idk) but its the $69.99 with free ship at newegg

anyway here are my results with HD Tach; 69MB/s average read; and 1947MB/s burst


----------



## Akatsuki No Tobi

Anyone know if one of my hard drives are bad? Those are 3 Barracudas in RAID0.
When I run HDTach, sometimes the benchmarks look completely stable, and other times it fluctuates.


----------



## superon

my benchies for a 7200.9 and 7200.10 in RAID0


----------



## tobyh7

Heres mine I have two 300GB Maxtor Diamondmax10's in raid 0
16MB cache


----------



## vix

Ok... Anyone care to analyze my benchies?

This was run on a SATA RAID0 array consisting of (2) 7200 rpm Samsung 160GB SATA2 HDD's w/ 128k stripe.


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*


Heres my two drives. Cpu-z won't fit on my little screen, so I have to post two pictures.

iTunes was running at the time, but it did not change songs, my library is on the 80gb.










*Second screenie with CPU-Z*











The difference from one 250GB to two.

Using two 250GB WD's, 16mb cache, 7200rpm. Stripe is 64k, RAID 0 on the nForce4SLI.


----------



## Thundergod989

4x320GB seagate barracuda's (sata2) running in raid 0 off an nvraid controller.

donno if running vista is a good idea with these benchies... I might try a run with xp after.

any suggestions for speed improvements?


----------



## bruestle2

I have vista (obviously), so I had to run these programs in compatibility mode for win xp (don't know if that would affect anything).
Also, i am using a software raid controller (ROSEWILL|RC-211) Stripe is 64K


----------



## cognoscenti

Okay I dont know if this is right but hey...

Single 1Tb Hitachi Deskstar
E6600 @ stock 2.4ghz
Ram @ 800 4-4-4-12


----------



## CyberDruid

Sig Rig

4 74 GB Raptors in RAID5 on an Areca1210
All clocks stock running DDR2 667 4 x 512

Do I get a cookie?


----------



## kennymester




----------



## SAVAGE!!!

Single Raptor 74 Gig.


----------



## Pooping^fish

My segate 7200.10 250gb on my conroe.



This seems pretty good, hitting the top of the singe sata drive charts or am I reading it wrong?


----------



## Pwnage

cant run HDtach on vista but


----------



## MjrTom

Here is mine

Think it puts me in the top 3 for the single SATA drive benchmark

System specs as main rig.

The Hard Drive being a Western Digital Caviar SE, 16MB Cache, SATA II, 
WD5000AAJS


----------



## Lu(ky

Not much of a improvement from 4 x 36gb Raptors 16mb cache 64k cluster raid -0-
To my new setup of 2 x WD Raptor X 150 raid -0- 16mb cache 128k cluster


----------



## stargate125645

ASUS P5N32-E SLI (Nvidia nForce 680i chipset) - BIOS version 1203
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 @ stock
2 x 1GB G.Skill HZ DDR2 1000 RAM @ 1066MHz
4 x 36GB WD Raptors (16MB cache) in RAID-0
128kb stripe size
I have no idea what the cluster size is; I left it at the default value when setting up the array.

Edit: I have since gotten the transfer speeds up to 164MB/s, but as I'm the fastest 680i user at the moment I won't bother to update it.


----------



## xXkeyboardkowboyXx

well this is the newer of the 2 250s i got.


----------



## Chozart

Updated (I think).


----------



## Chozart

My bad









Guess this is what happens when I update this stuff at like 3AM


----------



## Thundergod989

Ok, single drive.


----------



## Blizzie

Here are my two hard drives. My last one got deleted for some reason and was never added.









I believe I take the lead for single SATA Burst Speed.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/533...7155958tw8.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/1...7160328yy3.jpg


----------



## CyberDruid

this is from the XP side of Black Knight


----------



## dnvrdv

Not too shabby


----------



## Rolandooo

I dont know how good this is. anyways heres my scores.


----------



## Mootsfox

The difference from the NF4:









To the ICH9R:









Something is seriously wrong with my write speeds. I haven't noticed it being slow when installing any programs though.


----------



## The_Rocker

Heres mine:


----------



## AmericanNightmare

Just for the heck of it here's my 2 El Cheapo EXCELSTORS on a $20 SYBA/JMicron card.


----------



## ncsa

A quick test using 6x Drives 160Gb RAID-0 64K ICH9R Matrix Vista X32 on a stock Abit IP35 Pro Mobo









Average: 407.9


----------



## PROBN4LYFE




----------



## PROBN4LYFE

Upgraded...


----------



## Burn

Might as well submit my setup


----------



## MADMAX22

Hey burn thought I would throw mine up as we have a somewhat similer setup. Not much change from ic8r to ich9r looks like.


----------



## guyladouche

Here we go! Sig Rig, on-board ICH9R RAID controller. F6 BIOS.


----------



## GigaByte

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...enchmarks1.png


----------



## bad_haze

Is this a good result? I am really new to HD tweaking, but I defrag4x a week.







I hope it's actually making a difference in the numbers because I notice the smoothness of operations.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bad_haze*


Is this a good result? I am really new to HD tweaking, but I defrag4x a week.







I hope it's actually making a difference in the numbers because I notice the smoothness of operations.


Here is my single Seagate 7200.10 320gig drive:


----------



## ri.sho

My single 150GB Raptor, from what I see in the results on the first page my numbers are right up there, now all I need to do is start on my quad build this P4 has had as you can see with the temps....


----------



## Evil XP2400

Here's my single drive screen shot.


----------



## Evil XP2400

The database has been updated.


----------



## Mootsfox

Time to pull myself from the bottom of the list.

Got the same 250GB WD 16mb drives, but I'm using the ICH9R chipset now, and 12" SATA cables instead of 36" ones.


----------



## DSK DOC

Here's mine....


----------



## C.Jackson

Single Samsung HD501LJ 500GB:



The lack memory information in CPU-Z isn't too helpful so, mushkin 996529 2x1GB @ 800Mhz 4-4-4-12.


----------



## guyladouche

Can't beat this... Just thought I'd post this for laughs and giggles. It's my 2GB SD Card from my digital camera benched in my lappy's card reader. I have no idea what the "60x" speeds on the card claim to be because it's just as crappy as all the other SD cards out there--6MB/sec read! Woot!


----------



## C.Jackson

The best thing about cards like that (SD, xD, CF) are their random access times. I'm going to do raid 0 with 4 300x CF cards before it's over though, just for fun







.


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


Originally Posted by *C.Jackson* 
The best thing about cards like that (SD, xD, CF) are their random access times. I'm going to do raid 0 with 4 300x CF cards before it's over though, just for fun







.

Yeah, true, I guess the sub-ms seek times are notable. But still--I thought they had higher bandwidth than 7MB/s... But I'd LOVE to see your raid0 CF card--that would be awesome!


----------



## mrkryz

Hey I wasnt added to the list ! lol


----------



## MESeidel

I changed my Notebook HD last year and finally found the time to sort out the benchmarks:

*4200 * vs *7200* u/min

Both done after running the VAIO recovery disc - so conditions be as close as possible [don't wonder about all teh icons it has on the task bar ;o) ]

Controller: *ICH6* (82801FB) with Intel 915GM Northbridge
Disk1: 2.5 Zoll - 4200rpm - 80GB - 2MB Cache - Mini-PATA - TOSHIBA MK8025GAS
Disk2: 2.5 Zoll - 7200rpm - 100GB - 8MB Cache - Mini-PATA - Hitachi Travelstar 7K100

_see that the new disk also got more cache what is insulting the bench more or less._

benches

Disk1: *32.6*MB/s Burst - *22.6*MB/s Average read - *19.5*ms Random access
Disk2: *91.2*MB/s Burst - *43.3*MB/s Average read - *16.1*ms Random access

--> see attached pics

result

Ever though your notebook is slow?
A 7200 u/min Disk is worth the money for sure.
Extreme performance increase ofer a 4200 u/min Disk.
Even owners of Notebook with stock 5400 u/min disks should think about it ;o)

On the other hand the Sony factory build in 4200 u/min model was inaudibly while the 7200 u/min model is "loud" on strong load/write cycles.

And a Notebook 7200 u/min disk reaches only like 2/3 of the speed and access time a desktop 7200 u/min model has!

@Evil XP2400
could you please correct my name in the RAID0 benches table on line 13 and 63 ^^


----------



## kennymester

Here are my new benches on my areca 1210.


----------



## YahonMaizosz

Hi guys,
I have 3x150GB RAPTOR in RAID 0.. I wonder if any of you here is able to tell me exactly on how to SLICE these 3 drives so that they can have 2 different size of 20GB and 430GB both in RAID 0.. I am sure all of you here is familiar about Intel Matrix Raid..
If anyone of you can tell me how to SLICE these drives into 2 different slices, I will gladly post all my results here and also, you will be helping someone who is in great need of help..









Thank you!


----------



## Danbeme32

Here is my update.


----------



## YahonMaizosz

Well... Here is my score... Place me in the RAID 0 Section..


----------



## kennymester

I'm sorry, but that burst speed is incorrect. Thats an error caused by write-caching with the intel chip. If you disable write-caching you'll get a more accurate score.


----------



## Zeus

Well I thought its time to get on the raid 1 table so he's my test results for my little server...

MB: Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 (F10 BIOS)
HDD: 2x Hitachi 320GB 8MB SATA RAID1
Controller: Gigabyte 363 (I think)


----------



## rx7speed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kennymester*


I'm sorry, but that burst speed is incorrect. Thats an error caused by write-caching with the intel chip. If you disable write-caching you'll get a more accurate score.


is it really a bug or is the intel chip maybe caching it to ram?


----------



## rx7speed

here is my raid 0 setup.
4x seagate 7200.10 250gb drives with the 16mb cacheusing onboard ICH9R controller. stripe I believe is 32k, cluster size is windows default.









the second one is just one seagate drive of the same type using the same settings









last one for now and this is those 4 drives in raid 0+1. don't remember the stripe size but using all the same ICH9R controller.


----------



## vix

*Is this ok?*


----------



## arekieh

Heres mine


----------



## Rev1

This is my RAID-0 benchie, 2xWestern Digital Caviar SE 500GB, 16MB cache, SATA-300
Running RAID from an Intel ICH9R controller:










And this is a single drive, a Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200.10, 8MB cache, SATA-300


----------



## PizzaMan

Here is mine:

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...l/HDbench2.jpg
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...ll/HDbench.jpg


----------



## YahonMaizosz

I had posted result and still not in the list yet.. Funny..


----------



## Rev1

I enabled write back caching through Matrix Storage Manager, and there's quite a bit of improvement:

Before








After


----------



## vix

OK, so I think my numbers are screwy somewhere.. numbers don't coincide with each other, etc. Any ideas? Please?


----------



## kennymester

Hey Chozart, now that your back can you update the list?


----------



## Criswell

I don't have a screenshot but my 7200.10 320x2 Seagate Raid on ICH9R Got me 395.5 Burst, and 135.3 Average Read/Write...


----------



## CravinR1

Here is a screeny of my 320 x 2 (similar to Criswell)


----------



## Beerme

sorry, cant get a screenshot (pm me if u know an easy way) but in hd tach 3.0.4.0 with 3x80 gb sataII-- random access 10.8ms, avg read 199.4, cpu util 7 pct, and burst 1341.1 mb/s. i am testing at mo as im getting some 15k sas drives, gonna connect these sata drives to the sas controller too to see what a difference it makes between my onboard intel matrix raid, the sas hardware controller raid(with 3xsata).


----------



## Beerme

ok, heres a screenie, this is 3x80gb ST380811AS 3.AAE, raid0 (onboard), in a short while i'm going to transfer 4 of these onto my PCIe SAS raid controller......


----------



## Bazmecc

here's mine...4x320GB WD3200AAKS 16MB cache RAID 0


----------



## Beerme

WOW ^^ thats fast baz!!


----------



## mbreitba

What I don't get is these burst speeds that exceed the interface speeds for the drives?

Lets take the burst max of 3613MB/sec. That's with 3 Western Digital Raptor drives, which operate at SATA150. The INTERFACE that they are connected to is at 150MB/sec. How in the world is that person exceeding the combined interface bandwidth on 3 drives (450MB/sec). I mean really, they're exceeding it by 8X. This "competition" reeks of caching problems. Even if they were the new velociraptors, operating at SATA300 (300MB/sec), 3 drives would provide a PEAK capacity of 900MB/sec.

I think we should be looking for a different test to benchmark, as the ones here appear to be poisoned by system RAM caching.


----------



## Bazmecc

burst speed isn't really important anyway...when I run HDTach, my burst is anywhere from 2100-3000 MBps, but my avg read is always ~440MBps


----------



## rx7speed

do you have any test done with it going full stroke by chance?


----------



## Bazmecc

me?

and if so...full stroke? meaning?

I have a Long test a few posts up, but it's only with my 40GB OS partition...full stroke you want the full 1.16TB?


----------



## kennymester

Anything that comes close to around 1000 or more is wrong. Its a problem with the Intel chipset. If you want to see what you really get you have to turn off write caching.


----------



## rx7speed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bazmecc*


me?

and if so...full stroke? meaning?

I have a Long test a few posts up, but it's only with my 40GB OS partition...full stroke you want the full 1.16TB?


thats what I was hoping for at least with the full 1.16tb









while I can understand why you would only do a partial it isn't helping us for comparison when wanting to see the whole drives performance


----------



## Hedges

I dont understand how baz has such good average read mbs I have four fujitsu 15k sas drives on a 680i board with a 8704elp from lsi controlling them and I only get 275 average, why did I spend a 1000 dollars for less performance Is os influenced I noticed he is running xp.

side not my system specs are not right they will be this coming monday though still on the 680i for now could this be my prob I thought I had a handle on this issue with sas drive implementation but this seems to contradict what I have found.

On a side note I ran tests on my system with 2 sas drives on controller and 2 standard sata II's and the results were 163.6 average for the sas and 118 average read for the sata's wich seems consistent to me wich makes me think its my board limiting read rates any thoughts from you guys.


----------



## Kluster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hedges* 
I dont understand how baz has such good average read mbs I have four fujitsu 15k sas drives on a 680i board with a 8704elp from lsi controlling them and I only get 275 average, why did I spend a 1000 dollars for less performance Is os influenced I noticed he is running xp.

...











Try hd_speed by steelbytes using 16MB blocksize and see what you get.

http://www.steelbytes.com/?mid=20


----------



## arekieh

uve got to be kidding.... u have 17 hard drives?


----------



## Kluster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *arekieh* 
uve got to be kidding.... u have 17 hard drives?

More than that now:

1 x ST3750640AS 750GB OS
16 x ST3750640AS 750GB Raid-6
2 x ST31000340AS 1TB extra storage drives
2 x 750GB Seagate FreeAgent Pro usb/firewire/eSata
1 x ST3750640A 750GB PATA I found under a pile of newspapers


----------



## arekieh

u got to be kidding


----------



## Hedges

Here is the test you asked for seems awfully low to me whats going on???? I hope its the board I have the controller in the center pci-e slot wich is a full 16x slot thats only wired for 8x should be plenty though for the card which is a pci-e x4. I dont think I am the first to complain about the 680i and this problem. Also what about operating systems could it just be vista. Anyways I bought a high dollar cable to do the connecting internally without bays and what not. I think this is pretty standard stuff really for this type of application. I read once that a person was getting some sort of interferance from itself somehow from zip tieing, which I will have to admit I am pretty crazy with this has to be neat and trim, but I just think thats bogus, whats your take. Also included are some settings this is the was lsi tech support says they should be set for optimal speed (so they say).

http://www.scsi4me.com/sas-7082-f-ho...ith-power.html

http://www.scsi4me.com/fujitsu-max3073rc.html

http://www.scsi4me.com/lsi-logic-meg...etail-kit.html


----------



## Kluster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Hedges*


Here is the test you asked for seems awfully low to me whats going on???? I hope its the board I have the controller in the center pci-e slot wich is a full 16x slot thats only wired for 8x should be plenty though for the card which is a pci-e x4. I dont think I am the first to complain about the 680i and this problem. Also what about operating systems could it just be vista. Anyways I bought a high dollar cable to do the connecting internally without bays and what not. I think this is pretty standard stuff really for this type of application. I read once that a person was getting some sort of interferance from itself somehow from zip tieing, which I will have to admit I am pretty crazy with this has to be neat and trim, but I just think thats bogus, whats your take. Also included are some settings this is the was lsi tech support says they should be set for optimal speed (so they say).

http://www.scsi4me.com/sas-7082-f-ho...ith-power.html

http://www.scsi4me.com/fujitsu-max3073rc.html

http://www.scsi4me.com/lsi-logic-meg...etail-kit.html


*You forgot one very important step. Change the block size from 16kb to 16MB. I think you'll like the results.*

Oh, plus it looks like you're using Vista, in my PERSONAL opinion, that could be a cause of horrible performance as well.


----------



## Hedges

lol whoops Its all in the details right lol anyhow changed that setting, it performed better for a new average of 350 give or take a few. Has anyone tested with vista and then xp to compare results I hate to start pointing fingers but something has to be slowin it down these are not slow drives\\controller and I dont think its the pci-e bus on 680 I am just confused maybe this is just what they do, and I am expecting too much out of them, I would expect them to outperform raptors thought and I honestly cant tell If I am any better off thanks for your help so far duder I appreciate it


----------



## Vitaminx

Here's mine. One Western Digital 640GB Hard Drive


----------



## Mootsfox

2x500GB AAKS WD
Asus P5K-e w/ ICH9R
128kb stripe
Raid0

Just installed Vista 64bit, that's why it's not overclocked at all


----------



## aloosh81

2 x 250 seagate 16mb cach raid 0
please sombody tell me this is good or not


----------



## john55576

Here's mine...


----------



## engineered044

Seagate Barracuda ST3320620AS (320 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-II) x1


----------



## spice003

Quote:



Originally Posted by *john55576*


Here's mine...


nice benchmak!
those are the new 640GB's right? i'm planning on getting those next.

i'm getting 118MB/s avarege read with my current setup, just had 2 drives laying around.


----------



## kennymester

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kluster*


More than that now:

1 x ST3750640AS 750GB OS
16 x ST3750640AS 750GB Raid-6
2 x ST31000340AS 1TB extra storage drives
2 x 750GB Seagate FreeAgent Pro usb/firewire/eSata
1 x ST3750640A 750GB PATA I found under a pile of newspapers










Pics?


----------



## KmK

here are my results...

x2 7200.11's in RAID 0
evga 780i - P06 Bios

had to rma my dominator ram so I got 2gb corsair xms2 right now...

also, I don't know what stripe I have, it might be 128k


----------



## KmK

so is that where I'm supposed to be?


----------



## mica3speedy

Here's my c: drive which is 2x seagate 320gb 7200.10 on a nvidia 128k stripe, and also my backup drive, which is a seagate 500gb 7200.11. I can't help but think something isn't quite right with my raid setup







.


----------



## gonX

Guess what - the Maxtor DiamondMax 10's again









Look at ATTO for which drives it is, I'm submitting 2 different RAID setups









4k stripe is pretty bad for ATTO it seems - but it's overall much faster for games IMO. And I hate the Intel onboard controller - you can see the bottleneck on the 250's. I tried increasing the PCI-E bus speed and the speed went up too.


----------



## binormalkilla

All right here are my WD Caviar SE16 5000AAKS 500GB drives in RAID 0 on the ICH9R. 128kB stipe with 1 large partition, write back cache and advanced performance policy enabled. I have 2 more of these coming in a few days for 4 disk RAID 0...


----------



## gonX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


all right here are my wd caviar se16 5000aaks 500gb drives in raid 0 on the ich9r. 128kb stipe with 1 large partition, write back cache and advanced performance policy enabled. I have 2 more of these coming in a few days for 4 disk raid 0...:d




















Why are you getting so nice speeds?


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gonX*


Why are you getting so nice speeds?










Have you enabled write back cache? You can do that in the Intel Matrix Storage Manager. 
Also might want to make sure that advanced performance profile is checked if you're in Vista. It's under device manager\
ight click on array\\properties\\policies\\advanced performance.









I also notice that your drives have 8MB of cache vs my 16......makes a pretty big difference in benches (especially since we're running RAID on an onboard controller with no cache.)
WD Caviar Blacks whip my butt with simliar setups due to their 32MB of cache


----------



## gonX

Quote:


Originally Posted by *binormalkilla* 
Have you enabled write back cache? You can do that in the Intel Matrix Storage Manager.
Also might want to make sure that advanced performance profile is checked if you're in Vista. It's under device managerright click on arraypropertiespoliciesadvanced performance.









I also notice that your drives have 8MB of cache vs my 16......makes a pretty big difference in benches (especially since we're running RAID on an onboard controller with no cache.)
WD Caviar Blacks whip my butt with simliar setups due to their 32MB of cache









Ah ok might be the cache. Yes I have WBC enabled


----------



## PROBN4LYFE

lol...nice gonx...very nice


----------



## xlastshotx

New Benchmark below


----------



## The_Rocker

*A new Submission from me:*










3 x Western Digital 640AALS

My 1.74TB RAID 0, 128k stripes on a 780i. (32MB cache)

I also want to know why HD Tach results are so crap compared to HD Tune and ATTO:


----------



## Bazmecc

from a few other posts I've seen in this thread, HD Tach might not like the Nvidia stripes too much for some reason...as to why


----------



## The_Rocker

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bazmecc*


from a few other posts I've seen in this thread, HD Tach might not like the Nvidia stripes too much for some reason...as to why










Thats what I think.


----------



## xlastshotx

GA-EP45-UD3P F6 Bios 2xSeagate 640GB 32MB Cache









lol I don't think this thread will ever be updated.. It hasn't been updated in almost a year


----------



## Thundergod989

I certainly hope somebody updates it


----------



## Berger

Sorry guys but when I open ATTO it doesn't recognize my array, controller, nothing......So I googled a different version, nothing....any help?


----------



## Bazmecc

I get nothing in those sections either...just run the test, and don't worry about it


----------



## nist7

Are there any numbers for SSDs? Im curious as to how a single SSD stack up against conventional platter-spun HDDs in RAID0


----------



## Bazmecc

http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...ne-2-55-a.html

SSD tests in here, along with other drives


----------



## mrkryz

Random Access: 5.9ms
Average Read: 181.9 MB/s
*Burst: 3,291 MB/s*

2 - Fujitsu 147G SAS Raid-0 on Asus P6T6 WS Revolution Marvell 88SE6320 SAS

Full Size Screen Here

Thumbnail:


----------



## mrkryz

Click image or here to enlarge to 1680x1050 view


----------



## erick.mendes

Hi guys.

I got a q6600 on a Intel DP35DP, it's a ICH9R mobo.

I'm using 4 Samsung Spinpoint F1 320GB, model HD322HJ. The rest of my system specs is in my signature.

What you guys think about the results?
Oh, it's the default RAID 0 stripe, I don't remember, is it 128kb?


----------



## Ravin

Lots of benchies for 500Gb 7200.12 HDDs HERE....


----------



## bruestle2

This is a RAID 5 setup using 3x 750GB WD Black drives with 32MB of cache each. The RAID card is a Dell Perc 5/i with the latest LSI firmware.

System:
Phenom II 920 @ 2.8Ghz
Nvidia 9600GT
4GB of 533Mhz RAM
ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe


----------



## bruestle2

btw, is this still being updated? The last update on the main page says it was from 1-29-08


----------



## c0nv1ct

With a similar setup as mrkryz I get great results except the 1024kb test on Atto seems weird. I've ran it a bunch of times always with the same low result for 1024. Maybe I did something wrong?


----------



## binormalkilla

All right here I am on my PERC 5/i with 4x500GB RAID0 and 4x500GB RAID 5 on WD Caviar WD-5000AAKS drives. HD Tach sure does have some weird results compared to HDTune....seems much lower.
*RAID0*









*RAID5*


----------



## freebird

Hi, figured I would post my results.

3X 32GB Samsung SSD's on ICH10R
Core I7 920 at 3.8 GHZ


----------



## UPSBud83

I have vista and apparently HdTach doesn't work with it. And the other one won't start. What other programs are there?


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UPSBud83* 
I have vista and apparently HdTach doesn't work with it. And the other one won't start. What other programs are there?

right click on the HD tach shortcut, click properties, then go to the compatibility tab, run in compatibility mode fro XP, and run as administrator. click apply, then ok, then try to run it again.


----------



## Zinay

Tested in my signature rig.


----------



## FlaKing

Just ran HDTach on my new RAID 0 array. I'm pretty impressed, read speeds are twice as fast as my old WD 250GB array.


----------



## ASSSETS

3 Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS 500GB RAID 0 on ASUS M4A79T Deluxe AM3 790FX motherboard


----------



## eflyguy

You should post this info in the official HDTune sticky at the top of this forum
http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...ne-2-55-a.html
..a


----------

