# Please post your HDtune 2.55 results **SPREADSHEET UP, PLEASE RE-READ FIRST POST**



## wierdo124

HD Tune 2.55

Download here:

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

There's always being people claiming "Oh, my drive is way faster than yours". So, now we're creating a database of the performance of HDDs.

This thread was originally made by Robilar, and people only posted their results, there was no spreadsheet. As of June 2009, this has changed. Now, i've created a Google Docs function and tied it to this thread. Here's how it works:

Please input your results into the form linked below after running the HDTune tests. It's self explanatory, but the questions have instructions by them. If you have any questions ask. When done, hit "Submit" and your results will automatically be entered into the spreadsheet. *Please allow up to five minutes for your results to appear*, as it refreshes every five minutes.
*CLICK HERE TO INPUT RESULTS*

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rFDNrT8YOdkgPAqcQb48AHg&w=200&h=400 Google Spreadsheet

If you swore you added your data into the form again, i deleted it because i'm tired of spending time fixing mistakes that i clearly told you not to make...feel free to add yourself again; follow the rules this time.


----------



## mr.derp

good idea, Im running mine now. I think you should put a list up of hard drives.


----------



## Robilar

I thought about that but its just easier to add a list as members post. Too many drives out there.

I'll create a chart as we get more data in.


----------



## mr.derp

Thats what I meant, but I can't get my computer to idle down to get the most accurate reading.


----------



## Robilar

The joys of vista....


----------



## mr.derp

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robilar* 
The joys of vista....

No, its not vista, infact I love vista. I just forgot to get everything turned off.


----------



## Robilar

Here is another one:

WD 250 GB (WDC WD2500*AAKS*-00VSA)

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 15.6/103.7/83.9 MB/Second

Access Time: 16.4 ms

Burst Rate: 145.1 MB/sec

CPU usage: 1.6%

Note the difference between a 16MB cache AAKS and a 16MB cache Velociraptor....


----------



## mr.derp

Seagate Barracuda ST3250410AS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB

Transfer Rate:

min: 35.5 MB/s
max: 94.7
average: 76.9

Access Time:

16.0 ms

Burst Rate:

183.0 MB/sec

Cpu Usage:

2.1%


----------



## Robilar

cpu usage is a good idea, I'll add that too


----------



## nathris

Seagate 7200.3 2.5" Mobile HDD 320GB 16MB (ST9320421AS)

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 41.1/85.0/65.3 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 16.4 ms

Burst Rate: 62.4 MB/second

Not bad for a mobile HDD. Lots of turbulence though. Its almost as loud as my gpu fan.


----------



## huntman21014

WDC WD1600BEVT-75ZCT (160GB)

Transfer Rate
30.2/62.8/48.9MB/sec

Access Time
17.3ms

Burst Rate 81.6MB/sec

CPU Usage 1.5%

This is on my laptop drive, will run the bench on my sig rig in a few minutes


----------



## Robilar

Alright nice to see some results.


----------



## huntman21014

Those results were with the advanced features of SATA off, would it make a big difference turning them on?


----------



## TheEddie

Single drives only, no RAID0?


----------



## huntman21014

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheEddie* 
Single drives only, no RAID0?

I think he just wants you to note if you are running raid or not


----------



## Robilar

Both raid and non raid would be great.

I'll do separate charts for both.

Perhaps it will put to rest the debate on whether single raptors are faster than raided non raptors.


----------



## mhsbrian

I haven't used HDtune that much but it seems I get much better results from HDtach than tune but I downloaded it and here are my results.

Using x2 Seagate 320's and 1 400 Western Digital with a 128k Stripe with caching on my below setup.


----------



## TheEddie

*OS DRIVES*

RAIDO 2x Samsung SP2504C 250GB 8MB Cache










*STORAGE DRIVE*

WD6401AALS (640GB Black Edition) 32MB Cache









*
Looks like my 2 Samsungs are a bit better that the 150GB Velociraptor except in Access Time. Not bad!

Also, the 640GB Black is a hell of a drive. Two in RAID0 would eat Velociraptors for breakfast.*


----------



## CapDubOh

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250410AS 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive (x4, nVidia RAID0)

Transfer Rate:

Min - 88.8 MB/sec
Max - 144.2 MB/sec
Avg - 112.6 MB/sec

Access Time - 15.5 ms

Burst Rate - 81.9 MB/sec

CPU Usage - 8.2%


----------



## vi3t_boy

Seagate 7200.11 RAID0

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 75.1/179.5/135.9 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 13.1 ms

Burst Rate: IDK YOU TELL MEMB/second


----------



## stn0092

Single Western Digital 150GB Velociraptor
Min/Max/Average: 62.9/123.9/104.6
Access Time: 7.3ms
Burst Rate: 150.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 3.7%

Single Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black
Min/Max/Average: 35.5/108.6/84.1
Access Time: 13.5ms
Burst Rate: 105.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 3.3%


----------



## CapDubOh

I'm going to do some work and hopefully eek out some performance.


----------



## TheEddie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CapDubOh* 
I'm going to do some work and hopefully eek out some performance.

Why dont you run a RAID0+1 setup? Do you use all 1TB of space?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
Min/Max/Average: 51.1/108.9/85.8
Access Time: 12.5ms
Burst Rate: 185.8 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 1.1%


----------



## vi3t_boy

what could i do to make the access time shorter ?


----------



## mhsbrian

Something I'm confused with, my read rate is fine but the burst tends to be low I see on some drives and extremely high on others, why exactly is this so ? I'm trying to look for a pattern but I don't see one. Can someone give me this clarification of why ?


----------



## CapDubOh

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TheEddie* 
Why dont you run a RAID0+1 setup? Do you use all 1TB of space?

I live dangerously.


----------



## MasterShake

2) 750GB Samsung Spinpoint F1's. RAID0

Transfer Rate:
Min/Max/Avg: 86.2/174.8/137.8 mb/sec

Access Time:
12.3 ms

Burst Rate: 1142.2 mb/sec

CPU Usage: 5.9%


----------



## lonnie5000

Here's my Western Digital 500 gig AAKS drive. SATA2. Single drive.



Here's my other WD 500 gig YS drive. Sata2, single drive.



And here's my WD 200 gig drive. Sata1, single drive.



And for giggles here's my Maxtor 80 gig IDE drive. Single drive.


----------



## Robilar

Lots of great results.

I'll start compiling charts.


----------



## blee1149

My Results with one Seagate 250gb, I am thinking about raid 0 with 2-4 of these soon


----------



## wierdo124

Running now with my WD 5000AAKS. Will post results. I may also run my WD 2500KS


----------



## wierdo124

500GB WD AAKS. Not too bad.


----------



## x2s3w4

It's this drive the Seagate Barracuda ES.2 ST3250310NS 250GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive. I just put your avatar for the heck of it.
No RAID0 or anything.
Question: Why is my CPU usage so much more than yours?










Edit: Wow, I have the distinction of having the SLOWEST HDD IN THE TEST SO FAR!!!!!!!

I wonder how I screwed this test up. I simply downloaded the program, and ran it.
So I ran the test again. I have 2 of these drives and 1 doesn't have anything on it. A little better results so I think there was a problem with the first test and it should be disregarded. Also it would be interesting to see how much was on the HDD at the time of the test and if the results were different.


----------



## wierdo124

250GB WD KS. Not too great


----------



## wierdo124

Just for kicks and giggles. This is my OCZ RALLY2 8GB Flash drive. Seems to be VERY stable and pretty fast. Maybe SSD's are more stable in speed?


----------



## [email protected]

My 2x500GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 in Raid0


----------



## kaivorth

Now why the plummet...?? Score would have been better if it wasn't for that. Redid it, no plummet

And do fresh formatted hard drives effect performance?

This is with the 640gb WD Black Edition.

How do I get the thumbnails?


----------



## DennisC

My Western Digital 320GB SATA.


----------



## savagebunny

HD Tune: SAMSUNG SP2504C Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 21.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 71.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 56.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 17.1 ms
Burst Rate : 93.0 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.9%


----------



## G-Byte

Can I try...Please?!!! All Seagate here for me.

Ok, 1st up is my boot hdd (two partitions)
Attachment 89094

Then one of my 500's (3 partitions)
Attachment 89095


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kaivorth* 


















Now why the plummet...?? Score would have been better if it wasn't for that. Redid it, no plummet

And do fresh formatted hard drives effect performance?

This is with the 640gb WD Black Edition.

How do I get the thumbnails?

Could've just been a momentary access from somewhere else.

The thumbnails happen when you upload it as an attachment to your post. They're hosted on OCN.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

3x 320gig 7200rpm 16meg cache


----------



## Robilar

This has turned out more interesting then I thought it would.

Keep them coming.


----------



## porky

kewl heres mine!

when i try do the test with my 1TB drive , it says "read error" , then if I do the test to check its health , i get lots of red dots instead of green ones...whats that mean?


----------



## Bazmecc

4xRAID0 WDC 320GB WD3200AAKS-00B3A0

*OS Partition, 40GB
*
Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 264.9/455.0/407.8 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 9.5 ms

Burst Rate: 2077.7 MB/second

CPU Usage: 6.4%

*The rest, 1237 GB*

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 189.4/402.7/310.9 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 15.4 ms

Burst Rate: 2882.9 MB/second

CPU Usage: 4.8%


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:



Originally Posted by *porky*


kewl heres mine!

when i try do the test with my 1TB drive , it says "read error" , then if I do the test to check its health , i get lots of red dots instead of green ones...whats that mean?


I'd start moving stuff off it now...sounds like it's gonna go down the tubes real quick like.


----------



## porky

its a brand new drive...could i RMA it?


----------



## Robilar

Yes


----------



## skydeaner

bleh, not too good


----------



## kaivorth

Quote:



Originally Posted by *skydeaner*











bleh, not too good


Nono thats pretty good. Don't compare yourself to people in RAID. I got similar results, and we have similar hard drives


----------



## Bear

Hitachi t7k320


----------



## Kamikaze127

En route: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136283

This thing will be my back-up drive next week. It has served me well for 2 years


----------



## wiggy2k7

Here's mine... LOL



I'm thinking of getting a Western Digital WD6401AALS 640GB Black Edition.... what performance gains do you get from having a faster hardrive ???? eg... Would i get more FPS in games ????


----------



## Mikecdm

My two hdd that I'm using right now


----------



## wierdo124

YIKES that sucker took a huge drop in there for a second.


----------



## derek2esilent

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wierdo124*


YIKES that sucker took a huge drop in there for a second.











what were you saying about large drops?


----------



## usapatriot




----------



## Marlaman

Hitachi deskstar 160Gb single drive setup
Attachment 89168


----------



## Derp

El cheapo hitachi 160GB


----------



## tehmaggot

I'm not sure if you want raid results, but here are mine regardless. One 320GB drive, and another 300GB drive in raid0. They're heavily fragmented, so the results may have been affected. I'd like the burst score to be higher, and the access time lower, but I'm satisfied with boot and loading times.


----------



## Robilar

Definitely add raid results.

So 7 pages of results in two days. Very impressive.

I'm going to build a chart but want some feedback on how to sort it.

Obviously I'll do single drive and raid separately but what statistic should I rank the hard drives in?

I was thinking of ascending order based on access times (I'll do a separate chart for the SSD's as well).

Does this make sense or would average transfer rate be more logical?

Thanks


----------



## Kamikaze127

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Robilar*


Definitely add raid results.

So 7 pages of results in two days. Very impressive.

I'm going to build a chart but want some feedback on how to sort it.

Obviously I'll do single drive and raid separately but what statistic should I rank the hard drives in?

I was thinking of ascending order based on access times (I'll do a separate chart for the SSD's as well).

Does this make sense or would average transfer rate be more logical?

Thanks


I think that average transfer would be a more reliable way of recognizing which drives have the best overall performance.


----------



## tehmaggot

I haven't a clue on how you could sort the chart, I see either working relatively well but the "perfect" arrangement will depend on what the other users will be looking for. Some will be looking to compare similar access times with speeds, and others may be doing the opposite.


----------



## mica3speedy

in the settings you can change the block size. What size is everyone using when doing testing?


----------



## derek2esilent

well this would be more time consuming, but 2 charts is possible, 1 chart for average speeds, and 1 chart of acces times.

if you do one chart i would vote for average speeds


----------



## Clinic

There a difference between 2.55 and 3.10? I have 3.10 results...










Left to Right

WD vRaptor 150

70.9/121.3/99.5

Access Time: 7.1ms
Burst Rate: 178.1mb/s
CPU Usage: 4.4%

WD Caviar Black 1TB

24/107.5/86.1

Access Time: 14.4ms
Burst Rate: 134.6mb/s
CPU Usage: 4.2%

I have 2 of these WD Blacks and I need to put them in Raid0 for real fun...


----------



## kaivorth

Quote:



Originally Posted by *derek2esilent*


well this would be more time consuming, but 2 charts is possible, 1 chart for average speeds, and 1 chart of acces times.

if you do one chart i would vote for average speeds


I second that opinion. Also, I would wait on doing the charts for a good week. Average results of the same hard drives....or you can put both of them in there. Bigger quantity = more accurate data


----------



## Robilar

I'll give the thread 10 days or so and then compile it. Easier than constantly adding and updating every entry.


----------



## u238

Here is my laptop drive. Performance appears to be terrible. Main rig to come shortly...









Main 640GB drive:








Storage 640GB drive:








250GB storage:








Old 80GB drive:








Yes, I have a strange assortment of hard drives.


----------



## mica3speedy

Here is my 2x 320gb seagates in raid 0.


----------



## binormalkilla

Here I go. 2 500GB WD Caviar SE16 5000AAKS in Vista x64. Write cache and advance performance enabled.
In a few days I'll have my 2 other 500 GB drives for 4 drive RAID 0.....I'll update then.


----------



## RallyMaster

WD5002ABYS RE3 enterprise drive:









Seagate 160 and 320:









Will edit tomorrow or something with my Samsung HD502lJ results (which are faster _still_ than my WD5002ABYS)

Disregard the CPU usage because I was folding in all of them.

EDIT:
Okay scratch that...decided to run HDTune while I was brushing my teeth before bed:


----------



## vwgti

Drive in sig and screenshot attached.


----------



## Mozzie

*WD VelociRaptor 150Gb -WDC WD1500HLFS

OS Drive.*

Transfer Rate:

Minimum - 76.6 MB/sec
Maximum - 122.7 MB/sec
Average - 101.8 MB/sec

Access Time - 7.0ms
Burst Rate - 184.2MB/s
CPU Usage - 2.0%

*WD 500GB - WDC WD5000AAKS*

*Backup Drive.*

Transfer Rate:

Minimum - 38.2 MB/sec
Maximum - 83.4 MB/sec
Average - 67.1 MB/sec

Access Time - 13ms
Burst Rate - 112.1 MB/s
CPU Usage - 1.5%

*Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 750 - ST3750840AS

Backup Drive*

Transfer Rate:

Minimum - 38.7 MB/sec
Maximum - 69.4 MB/sec
Average - 61.0 MB/sec

Access Time - 13.9ms
Burst Rate - 141.7 MB
CPU Usage - 1.3%


----------



## Darren9

The 2 Velociraptor 150's Raid0 64k stripe, ICH9R:

Min 115.4
Max 228.4
Avg 186.5
Access 7.2
Burst 1507.9
CPU 2.6

WD Caviar (500Gb), Gigabyte SATA2:

Min 43.9
Max 94.5
Avg 75.4
Access 12.7
Burst 109.1
CPU 1.6

Maybe include a reference to the controller, i've seen people getting 300Gb/sec from the same discs as mine on a high end card.


----------



## Robilar

Good point.

I'll add it to the notes on the front page.


----------



## Mikecdm

Did my raptor today


----------



## vi3t_boy

do I need a fresh window installation if I add another 2 drives in my Raid0? i'm getting 2 more drives today. will post result when it's ready.


----------



## Mozzie

Quote:

The 2 Velociraptor 150's Raid0 64k stripe, ICH9R:

Min 115.4
Max 228.4
Avg 186.5
Access 7.2
*Burst 1507.9*
CPU 2.6
Burst-1507.9 is this for real?


----------



## gamer11200

<delete me>


----------



## l4n b0y

3x Seagate 7200.10's Raid0 128k Stripe ICH10R


----------



## gamer11200

Here is mine:
Western Digital 160GB ATA
Not much of a hard drive in terms of speed, size and energy efficiency, but it's 4 1/2 years old and still running


----------



## Darren9

Quote:

Quote:
The 2 Velociraptor 150's Raid0 64k stripe, ICH9R:

Min 115.4
Max 228.4
Avg 186.5
Access 7.2
Burst 1507.9
CPU 2.6

Burst-1507.9 is this for real?
Volume Write-back Cache enabled in Matrix storage console, with it disabled its <200.


----------



## siric

Anyone got the stats for the VelociRaptor 300GB or 2x VelociRaptors in RAID0?

Darren9, I take it you're not using the on-board controller?

I can already tell the Velociraptor has the lowest access time.


----------



## Darren9

Quote:



Anyone got the stats for the VelociRaptor 300GB or 2x VelociRaptors in RAID0?

Darren9, I take it you're not using the on-board controller?

I can already tell the Velociraptor has the lowest access time.


It is the onboard - ICH9R. I've got version 7.6.0.1011 of the Intel Matrix Storage Manager, the latest (8.6.0.1007) gives me about 20Gb/sec less sequential read. Other people have reported similar.


----------



## gamer11200

Wait, I've been checking out other posts, is my hard drive failing (literally) or something. It drops off at numerous points.


----------



## Guruboy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *siric*


Anyone got the stats for the VelociRaptor 300GB or 2x VelociRaptors in RAID0?

Darren9, I take it you're not using the on-board controller?

I can already tell the Velociraptor has the lowest access time.


I'll be receiving my 300GB Velociraptor soon. I'm sure other people will post their own data though.


----------



## Danbeme32

2x250 seagate 7200.10 Raid-0

Min/Max/Avg: 106.5 /183.4/154.8 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 15.2 ms

Burst Rate: 3832.2 MB/second

CPU Usage: 3.3%


----------



## trezegol13

(2) 74GIG Raptors RAID0 128k stripe


----------



## trezegol13

(2) 74GIG Raptors RAID0 128k stripe


----------



## blee1149

Just had time to set up the new partition today, going to bench the partition tmrw:
3x Seagate 500GB 7200.11 with a 40GB Partition

Seems like crappy transfer speed, but access time seems amazing. (my other bench showed 7.8ms)


----------



## quakermaas

Samsung 500GB SpinPoint HD502LJ F1 (single)

Samsung 500GB SpinPoint HD502LJ F1 x2 (Raid0)

Samsung 500GB SpinPoint HD502LJ F1 x2 (Raid0) with latest nvidia drivers

New readings after fresh install,with a new xp pro slipstream disk + nv raid added
. Old disk was causing alot of system instability(after 3 installs and hardware trouble shooting, it turned out to be a corrupt install disk aaaarrrrrh)


----------



## Kamikaze127

Wester Digital 750Gb AALS (Black Edition)


----------



## Marin

640gb AAKS on the right.


----------



## Sonic

Seagate 250GB ST3250410AS


----------



## wcrsx

Attachment 89741

My cpu usage is 100%. I noticed the other uploads are all between 1% and 10%. What does this mean?


----------



## Bazmecc

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wcrsx*


Attachment 89741

My cpu usage is 100%. I noticed the other uploads are all between 1% and 10%. What does this mean?


anything else running in the background?


----------



## wcrsx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bazmecc*


anything else running in the background?


No windows opened. MSN and AVG were running. Thats about it I think


----------



## Ledge68

Here is my 74Gb Raptor and 250Gb Seagate.


----------



## gamer11200

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wcrsx*


No windows opened. MSN and AVG were running. Thats about it I think


Could be maybe AVG was doing a virus scan at the time.


----------



## wcrsx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gamer11200*


Could be maybe AVG was doing a virus scan at the time.


I don't think AVG was scanning but ran the test again and its more in line now at 2.5% CPU utilization.

Thanks all


----------



## gamer11200

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wcrsx* 
I don't think AVG was scanning but ran the test again and its more in line now at 2.5% CPU utilization.

Thanks all

No problem.


----------



## dynoman101

these are my results. Are they accurate?


----------



## gamer11200

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dynoman101*


these are my results. Are they accurate?



It looks about right.


----------



## Kamikaze127

Bumeroo. Cut down my processes and let it run w/o interference. This is all on the SB600.


----------



## Robilar

11 pages and counting. I've started collating the data from all of the posts.

Charts to be added soon.


----------



## -n7-

Intel X25- 80 GB









I don't think i have the most up to date Intel chipset drivers, & Vista was doing something with my other HDDs in the background during my testing, so i imagine results could be slightly better, but they are good enough for me


----------



## Papa.Smurf

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST3500320AS 500GB, 7200 RPM, 32MB Cache


----------



## 69BBNova

2 WD Velocraptors 300GB Raid 0 128kb stripe nvidia onboard

This is my first raid attempt I'm pretty happy with the results, but I'm bummed out the I never ran test when it was a single.

I still need to get the latest driver, and find out if there are some BIOS settings I can change. I'm still learning.

The slightly better CPU percentage was with um crap I can't remember what I turned off.


----------



## wiggy2k7

Here is my Western Digital 640GB Caviar Black WD6401AALS


----------



## superon

2 Seagate 7200.10s in RAID0 (80GB each) on an Nforce4 chipset RAID controller:
Transfer Rate:
*66.4MB/s - 111.9MB/s - 101.7MB/s* -- Min - Max - Avg
Access Time:
*17.5ms*
Burst Rate:
*147.4MB/s*
CPU usage:
*5.2%*


----------



## The_Rocker

Heres 3 Western Digital 640GB AALS Caviar Blacks in RAID 0:










Please excuse the crappy onboard controller.


----------



## scottb75

Forgive the bareness of my desktop I just reformatted.

Anyway here is the result of what happens if you combine: 2 x WD 6400AAKS drives + 1 x WD 6400AALS drive in Raid-0 with a 128kb stripe.

Edit: This is still using my EVGA 780i onboard controller.


----------



## gamer11200

I gotta say, compared to my old IDE one, the WD 500GB Sata2 (that runs in Sata1) is a great improvement. Greater than I expected!

[WD 500GB 7200rpm 16MB cache Sata2 on the left, and WD 160GB 7200rpm 8MB cache IDE on the right]


----------



## Villainstone

What settings... just open it and run at default?


----------



## Villainstone

OCZ 30GB Core Series V2 SSD RAID0

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 214.3/274.6/271.7 (MB/Second)

Access Time: .2 ms

Burst Rate: 1149.8 MB/second

CPU Usage: 7%


----------



## Bonz(TM)

This is with my 680i. I don't think the PERC likes this board a whole lot. I'll run it again when I get my DQ6.

Anyone know why the burst is so slow? I had to run the benchmark with 512k blocks.


----------



## gamer11200

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Villainstone*


OCZ 30GB Core Series V2 SSD RAID0

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 214.3/274.6/271.7 (MB/Second)

Access Time: .2 ms

Burst Rate: 1149.8 MB/second

CPU Usage: 7%


You have to post your results using HDTune 2.55, not a pro version and not a newer version.

btw, that's a nice SSD that you have there


----------



## Villainstone

OCZ 30GB Core Series V2 SSD RAID0

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 226.3/274.4/272.1 (MB/Second)

Access Time: .2 ms

Burst Rate: 961.6 MB/second

CPU Usage: 7.3%


----------



## MalVeauX

Heya,

Here's some non-performance benchmarks for those looking at external solutions for their HTPC, etc.

It's a Fantom Green Drive (WD 1tib green drive, 5400rpm) connected via eSATA on a $20 Rosewill RC-214 controller card.










Next up are two old 80gig WD drives (7200rpm) in RAID0 on a software RAID controller via the motherboard (Asus M2N-SLI):










(The minimum on it kills it, too bad)

Very best,


----------



## Darkknight512

Random Hitachi 160 gb drive, model number in the screenshot
No Raid


----------



## Mike-O

Single Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ


----------



## dralb

Here's mine. Not sure if it is good or not, lol. Running 2x WD 80 GB in RAID 0. Models WD800JD.


----------



## gamer11200

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dralb* 
Here's mine. Not sure if it is good or not, lol. Running 2x WD 80 GB in RAID 0. Models WD800JD.

redo that test with no open windows and antivirus disabled/turned off. The end of that graph is not normal for it to fall that low and stay there. Other than that, your maximum and burst rate seem fine


----------



## Thundergod989

4x OCZ core (original) 64G on highpoint rocketraid controller (256mb cache):










High transfer rates and low latency but vista still takes like 6 bars to load ? stumped. The CPU usage is off because for some reason hdtune always uses 100% of one core (25%) even when not benchmarking... odd.


----------



## ljason8eg

I guess my drive is a pile of crap...


----------



## dralb

OK, here is with AV disabled, all windows and sidebar closed.


----------



## nonzenze

2x 250gb Seagate ST3250410AS single platter on ICH10R
Min:108.3MB/s
Max:194.5MB/s
Avg:162.8MB/s

Access:15.3ms
Burst:2823.5MB/s
CPU:51.6%?


----------



## gamer11200

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nonzenze* 
2x 250gb Seagate ST3250410AS single platter on ICH10R
Min:108.3MB/s
Max:194.5MB/s
Avg:162.8MB/s

Access:15.3ms
Burst:2823.5MB/s
CPU:51.6%?

CPU is high because you might of been running other programs at the time.


----------



## Thundergod989

Updated results.

On top is 4x320G seagate discount bin sata drives

bottom is 4x64Gb OCZ core (v1) ssd's in raid 0 on a highpoint rocketraid 3520 controller


----------



## Thundergod989

Anybody going to graph these?


----------



## oneluvballer21

I got a couple of 18.6gb 15k U160 SCSI drives I'm going to throw in a RAID0 array on my server that I'll post some stats for, but I'm not yet at the point of putting the server all together and setting it up... right now I sleep in "the office" since my g/f and I broke up, and all my computer stuff is quite cramped in here until she moves out later this month, but then I'll have more space to play around and get things moving... including moving my computers out into the living room!







Luckily my incoming roommate (and best friend) is cool with the computers. But soon I'll post those SCSI RAID0 stats...


----------



## scottb75

Well I took the plunge and purchased two 300GB Velociraptors and put them in Raid-0 with a 128k stripe. I'm liking these drive a lot so far, when I first picked them up at Micro Center I had a little buyers remorse, but once I got Vista installed on them I've been nothing but pleased with the performance of these.


----------



## BlankThis

Yeah it sucks... I need RAID0

~B~


----------



## wierdo124

Hey Robilar, what ever happened to the spreadsheet you were making?


----------



## BikePilot

3x WD5000YS drives on ICH9R software raid-0 with write-back enabled.









A single WD5000YS (not sure if write-back was enabled for this run)









Samsung 5400rpm, 1TB drive. I don't think write-back was enabled









BTW I have no clue why the cpu reading is negative???


----------



## Slave One

*My OS Drive:*
2x Seagate 15K 146GB SAS in RAID0 hooked to a P400 256MB SAS Smart Array Controller









Min: 112.2 MB/sec
Max: 147.0 MB/sec
Avg: 137.9 MB/sec

Access Time: 5.6 ms
Burst Rate: 251.2 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 4.9%










*My (much slower, lol) Data drive:*
1x Seagate 750GB 32MB ES.2 SATA HDD

Min: 49.8 MB/sec
Max: 108.5 MB/sec
Avg: 85.2 MB/sec

Access Time: 12.6 ms
Burst Rate: 61.1 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 14.2%


----------



## nden

Single drive SSD (no RAID).


----------



## Villainstone

Main Drive: 4 OCZ Core V2 RAID0 on a PERC 5/i

Min: 262.3 MB/sec
Max: 489.5 MB/sec
Avg: 481.0 MB/sec

Access Time: 0.3 ms
Burst Rate: 307.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 1.4%


----------



## nden

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Villainstone* 
Main Drive: 4 OCZ Core V2 RAID0 on a PERC 5/i

Min: 262.3 MB/sec
Max: 489.5 MB/sec
Avg: 481.0 MB/sec

Access Time: 0.3 ms
Burst Rate: 307.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 1.4%

DAMN. That's nice set up







I wish I had money to burn for 4 SSD


----------



## wimcle

4x wd6401aals 64kb stripe ich10r








By wimcle at 2009-01-20


----------



## lonnie5000

Thought I would throw up the results on this USB drive I got at Wal-Mart today. Its a Sandisk Cruzer 4 gig drive. First thing I done when I got it home was delete the junk off of it and format it.


----------



## SDriver

Heres my raid0 with 2 640g wd aaks.


----------



## Rebelion

2x Seagate 7200.11 500GB 32MB on RAID 0, EVGA 780i FTW:










64KB stripe size
--

Any idea why my burst rate is that low?


----------



## Boyboyd

2x Samsung Spinpoint 250Cs in software raid0


----------



## manooti

this is my first time doing a hdd test. also first time in raid 0. are these numbers normal for a raid setup? i have 128k stripe.


----------



## Bazmecc

seems slow...did you enable Write Back Cache?


----------



## marknotk

Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB
2x in RAID 0 - 128k


----------



## manooti

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bazmecc* 
seems slow...did you enable Write Back Cache?

im using the rosewill rc-211 for raid0. i checked device manager properties and it has look ahead enabled and write cache enabled. i dunno what im doing wrong









i just checked "enable advanced performance" under policies. gonna test it out and see what happens.

*edit* just ran the test, same numbers


----------



## Photographer

WD 750 AACS

MIN:6.6MB/s
MAX:82.1MB/s
AVG:61.6MB/s
CPU Useage:1.1%
BURST:128.5MB/s
Acess:14.6ms

WD 3200JB (IDE)
MIN:35.4MB/s
MAX:64.1MB/s
AVG:84.4MB/s
CPU Useage:1.4%
BURST:67.5MB/s
Acess:13.4ms


----------



## d3v0

WD500AAKS *Raid 0*

Transfer Rate Min/Max/Avg:

73.6/134.6/120.4 MB/s

Access Time:

12.3ms

Burst Rate:

114.4 MB/s

CPU Usage:

11.2% (***?)


----------



## Izvire

Quote:


Originally Posted by *d3v0* 
WD500AAKS *Raid 0*

Transfer Rate Min/Max/Avg:

73.6/134.6/120.4 MB/s

Access Time:

12.3ms

Burst Rate:

114.4 MB/s

CPU Usage:

11.2% (***?)

Man your results are totally different from my WD3200AAKS raid0 setup :S

Transfer Rate Min/Max/Avg:

148.3/207.9/170.0 MB/s

Access Time:

15.2ms

Burst Rate:

144.1MB/s

CPU Usage:

4.1%


----------



## d3v0

I dont know why, probably my cruddy CPU usage? I am not overclocked either. I also just ran Perfectdisk 10, it was even slower before that.


----------



## Bazmecc

are your WD 500's single or double platter? might be slower since the 320GB's are single platter


----------



## Connor3400

Bleh!


----------



## wierdo124

Dude Connor, that's terrrible...i've got the same one and IIRC it was way higher than that. I'd be nervous if i was you


----------



## Connor3400

Should I run the test again without a lot of activity in the background or would that not really make a difference?

I can't remember if it was speedfan or one of those programs, but which one can check your hard drive?


----------



## Bazmecc

if you've got a lot of things in the background using your HD, it will give you low results

and yes, Speedfan has the hard drive checker


----------



## Connor3400

Not sure what the problem could be. I closed all my programs, and it didn't really do that much better, just by 1 or 2 points all around.

I ran the "find errors" on HDTune, but everything was good (all squares were green), and speedfan has the "performance" bar maxed out and the "fitness" bar has like 1 bar from the max.


----------



## Unknownm




----------



## Cryptedvick

160GB windows 
200GB storage
250GB games and movies

i guess the results are pretty fare


----------



## Robilar

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wierdo124*


Hey Robilar, what ever happened to the spreadsheet you were making?


Crazy month at work. I'll get to it next week when things have gotten a bit less stressful.


----------



## wierdo124

^thanks. I was actually considering doing it myself.


----------



## Jasong911

Here are the results of a ICH10R Raid Driver change. From the out-of-the-box Gigabyte supplied driver (2007 vintage) to the latest Intel one (late 2008).

OLD:










NEW:










Enough of a change to illustrate that Driver and Bios versions of raid controllers make a difference.


----------



## mattdowns

first: wd 300gb velociraptor, second: wd 1tb caviar black


----------



## sdla4ever

heres mine

Seagate Barrcude 500 GB (ST3500320AS)


----------



## sdla4ever

also did my WD My Book with all 3 connetion types, firewire, usb, esata.

first is esata pic, second is usb than firewire.

i guess paying 30$ more could be helpful.


----------



## spice003

yeah i know they all suck, i wanna pick up 7200.12 soon.


----------



## rrc1967

1TB caviar black WD on ICH9R









Fujitsu MAX3073 SAS on a PERC 5/i - non RAID, PERC 5/i 256MB controller









2xOCZ Core Version 2, RAID 0, 128K stripe, PERC 5/i 256MB controller


----------



## Boyboyd

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rrc1967*


xOCZ Core Version 2, RAID 0, 128K stripe, PERC 5/i 256MB controller










zomg, access time!


----------



## Bartmasta

I'm jealous of you guys. My HDD's are slow.









160GB OS drive










250GB Gaming / storage Drive


----------



## Outcasst

ICH9R RAID 0

2 x WD3200AAKS Single platters


----------



## Demented

OK, I just installed and ran this on both my IDE and SATA HDDs.

OS and Program Files IDE 8mb Cache:









GAMEZ and STUFF SATA 16mb Cache:









So are these good results?


----------



## dogshome

2 Samsung F1 1TB SATA RAID 780i - - - 150MB/S average.
1 Samsung - - - 90MB/S average.
1 Hitachi 320MB - - - 71MB/S average.

P.S. I can see who is running superfetch etc here and who isn't


----------



## Blameless

Seagate 7200.12, single drive in first image, then two drive Matrix RAID0 in second:


----------



## HondaGuy




----------



## Joeking78

Heres mine. Single G.Skill Titan 256GB SSD.

HDTune is not a great tool for benching SSD's, CrystalMark is much better


----------



## HondaGuy




----------



## Xeroni

1- 74GB Raptor, OS.
2- 750GB Seagate 7200.10, games and storage
3- 500GB WD Green Power, storage
4- 160GB Hitachi, music and Steam

I think the high CPU usage is because of speedstep, or I hope so. Windows reports higher burst and transfer rates, from the raptor to the Seagate I usually get over 80mb/s, topping out at 120mb/s.


----------



## Lu(ky

3 x 300GB VelociRaptors Intel Matrix Raid -0- 300 slice


----------



## Massive17

That looks awesome I just ordered 3 x 500GB AALS's. Are you using on board or do you have a raid controller?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The_Rocker*


Heres 3 Western Digital 640GB AALS Caviar Blacks in RAID 0:










Please excuse the crappy onboard controller.


NEVER MIND I AM BLIND! IT SAYS IT RIGHT BELOW YOUR POST


----------



## P?P?!

my 3 hdds.. they are all 2yrs old now and i think they are running pretty good still


----------



## spice003

seagate 7200.12 fresh vista install on my brother inlaw pc


----------



## gurusan

2x 750GB Hitachi 7k1000.B drives (2 platter) in RAID-0 on Intel ICH10R


----------



## Boyboyd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gurusan* 
2x 750GB Hitachi 7k1000.B drives (2 platter) in RAID-0 on Intel ICH10R










Very nice burst speed...


----------



## kaivorth

We need a chart!!!


----------



## Derp

A little bit better then my previous HD







. http://www.overclock.net/4995351-post60.html

WD6401AALS:


----------



## gurusan

Quote:



Originally Posted by *boydyboyd*


Very nice burst speed...


thanks, HDtach gives an even higher burst speed....crazy fast :/


----------



## [email protected]

(2) WD Caviar Black 640GB in RAID 0 [WD6401AALS]

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 106.2/223.3/169 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 11.6 ms

Burst Rate: 123.1 MB/second

CPU Usage: 17.8%










Yes, the CPU usage is a bit high and I don't know why my burst speed is so low...


----------



## DUNC4N

I don't even know if its any good, time to do some research...


----------



## gurusan

Quote:


Originally Posted by *[email protected]* 
(2) WD Caviar Black 640GB in RAID 0 [WD6401AALS]

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 106.2/223.3/169 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 11.6 ms

Burst Rate: 123.1 MB/second

CPU Usage: 17.8%

Yes, the CPU usage is a bit high and I don't know why my burst speed is so low...

I wanted those drives but they were too expensive :/ Awesome access times for a 7200rpm drive. Very nice...

And I'd guess that your burst rate is low because you haven't enabled write-back caching.


----------



## ALIGN




----------



## broken pixel

i will post once my box is set up.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gurusan*


And I'd guess that your burst rate is low because you haven't enabled write-back caching.


Is that the "advanced performance" setting in the drives' device properties? If so, I already checked it off.


----------



## gurusan

Sorry, I don't know how the nvidia raid controller sets things up.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gurusan*


Sorry, I don't know how the nvidia raid controller sets things up.


Thanks for suggesting the write back caching option. Apparently, nVIDIA doesn't offer a write back caching option. :swearing:


----------



## bavarianblessed

Two Seagate 7200.11 750 gig Drives in RAID0 (short stroked to 10% capacity)
on ICH10R controller.


----------



## wierdo124

Maybe i'll get started on the chart.


----------



## Boyboyd

2 x 250Gb samsung dives (fairly old) in raid0 with an Intel ICH8 SB.










For my next upgrade i think im going to go for 3x640 WD drives.


----------



## Massive17

hey guys what a should i set the block size in the options menu, someone told me 8mb, which is the most accurate?


----------



## Massive17

Here's mine freshly done.


----------



## gergregg

3x30GB Vertex ICH10R


----------



## Greg121986

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gergregg*


3x30GB Vertex ICH10R


ZOMG drool!!!!









Here is a test I did a few days ago with all of my HDDs.


----------



## Bazmecc

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Massive17*


hey guys what a should i set the block size in the options menu, someone told me 8mb, which is the most accurate?


for comparisons sake, leave everything at default, which is 64 kb blocks and one notch up from from accurate


----------



## bavarianblessed

Here are updated slightly better results after using Smart Defrag
The access times are pretty damn good for 7200 rpm drives, almost as fast as a pair of Raptors. The partition is almost full though, need to get another pair of em.









By bavarianblessed at 2009-04-02

EDIT: Samsung Spinpoint F1 750 Storage Drive


----------



## dogshome

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gergregg* 
3x30GB Vertex ICH10R

Hmm, looks like it could be giving you some lag? NOT!


----------



## wtrskii3156

I just decided to see what some 5400 rpm drives could do in raid 0.

3x 320 GB WD

Let me know what you think.


----------



## gnolnats




----------



## OfficerMac

2 Seagate 160gb 7200rpm in raid 0

Transfer Rate Minimum : 44.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 106.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 79.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 13.3 ms
Burst Rate : 132.0 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 1.6%


----------



## DannyM

I just got my new hard drive today....a VRaptor 300Gb.

Here are the numbers for my old hdd:
HD Tune: ST3500630AS Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 33.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 69.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 59.4 MB/sec
Access Time : 13.3 ms
Burst Rate : 138.5 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 1.5%

Here are the numbers for my new hdd:
HD Tune: WDC WD3000HLFS-01G6U0 Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 70.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 120.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 98.2 MB/sec
Access Time : 7.2 ms
Burst Rate : 179.3 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.2%


----------



## bavarianblessed

3 WesternDigital 3200AAKS 320GB drives. 
RAID0 with a 96GB partition (10% capacity)

READ



WRITE









By bavarianblessed at 2009-04-18


----------



## [email protected]

Very nice speeds, bavarianblessed.

Are you running the RAID array on the onboard RAID controller or a dedicated RAID controller?


----------



## bavarianblessed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *[email protected]*


Very nice speeds, bavarianblessed.

Are you running the RAID array on the onboard RAID controller or a dedicated RAID controller?


Thanks








I'm using the ICH10 controller on my motherboard. I just used Acronis to mirror my partition to the WD's so I'm running my oS from them now. Feels a bit zippier. Just installed COD4 in a little over 8 minutes. I know it took at least 20 on my last array.


----------



## Unearthly

Here is my desktop array, 4x WD 500GB AAKS. Hopefully it will hold me out long enough until SSDs get cheaper.


----------



## Boyboyd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unearthly* 
Here is my desktop array, 4x WD 500GB AAKS. Hopefully it will hold me out long enough until SSDs get cheaper.









haha your CPU usage was -1%









But yeah, that's a good score, just 2 dips which brought the average down.


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Single drive config.

*OS drive: WD150HLFS*

Min/Max/Avg: 63/123.8/101.3 (MB/sec)

Access Time: 7.2 ms

Burst Rate: 193.7 MB/second

CPU Usage: 1.4%

*Storage drive: WD1001FALS*

Min/Max/Avg: 49.3/107.8/85.1 (MB/sec)

Access Time: 12.6 ms

Burst Rate: 146.0 MB/second

CPU Usage: 1.6%


----------



## xlastshotx

-Two Seagate ST3640323AS 640GB's in Raid 0
-Motherboard Raid

Transfer Rate Minimum : 83.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 224.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 172.1 MB/sec
Access Time : 14.6 ms
Burst Rate  : 1231.2 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 3.3%










Not bad


----------



## AmgMake

My one and only, over four years old WD drive. Not so fast but at least hasn't failed like my Samsung and Seagate drives. Will be buying WDs in the future for sure









HD Tune: WDC WD2500JD-22HBC0 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 27.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 58.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 49.7 MB/sec
Access Time : 13.5 ms
Burst Rate : 105.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 2.1%

Edit: Added screenshot


----------



## Wattes

Disks: Dual WD1500AHFD (old raptors) in Raid 0
Controller: ICH9R onboard

Transfer Rate Minimum : 96.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 162.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 136.3 MB/sec
Access Time : 8.3 ms
Burst Rate : 105.5 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 3.9%

Attachment 106228

Not bad, but they need more max speed


----------



## Bonz(TM)

6x 1TB WD Blacks

RAID5 on PERC 5/i

High CPU usage was because I'm folding 24/7 on this rig


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

I picked up another 150GB velociraptor last week and started dabbling in RAID.

2x 150 GB Velociraptors
RAID 0
Stripe = 128k
ICH10R
HDtune 2.55, Block size = 128k

Min = 142.0 MB/Sec
Max = 263.3 MB/Sec
Avg = 191.7 MB/Sec

Access = 7.2 ms
Burst = 185.4 MB/Sec
CPU = -1%. We've gone to plaid.




































And for comparison, one 150 veloci non-raid:










An additional Veloci + RAID 0 = 90% increase in transfer rate. Sweet!









Note: The RAID 0 run was done on W7 x64; the non-RAID was on XP x64.


----------



## Cryptedvick

Just bought a WDC 640AAKS.
here are the benches:
Samsung SpinPoint S166 --160GB
WDC 250AAKS --250GB
WDC 640AAKS --640GB


----------



## bumsoil

WD6400AAKS raid 0


----------



## degamazing




----------



## munaim1

IS IT GOOD?

My raid 0 seems to be as fast as a single velociraptor but shame about the access time!!!

By the way thats my internal 1tb samsung HD103UJ.


----------



## dogshome

munaim1:- RAID looks slow









The Samsung drives are very quick. Two of those in RAID will be a lot faster. Whats the speed on a single 250G Seagate?


----------



## Izvire

2x short stroked 320gb WD Blues (AAKS) on raid0.


----------



## almighty15

A single OCZ Core Series V2 SSD ( 60Gb )










Got 3 of them now so i should see quite a speed increase


----------



## GigaByte

Sig HDDs in RAID 0 w/ ICH9R.


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
A single OCZ Core Series V2 SSD ( 60Gb )










Got 3 of them now so i should see quite a speed increase









I peed.


----------



## wierdo124

Please input your results into this form:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewf...Y1FiNDhBSGc6MA..

When you do so, it will show up on the Google Docs spreadsheet i set up:

 <!-- AME Google Spreadsheet --> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rFDNrT8YOdkgPAqcQb48AHg&w=200&h=400 Google Spreadsheet


----------



## almighty15

Ive added my results to the spreadsheet









Personally i would add 'number of drives' and RAID mode to the list aswel


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

wierdo124: thanks for the speradsheet! Good idea. I like that anyone can add to it.

Quote:

Personally i would add 'number of drives' and RAID mode to the list aswel
Also a good idea!


----------



## ItsTopher

SSD's are ok, but I beat the OCZ drive above in 4/5 catagories.


----------



## almighty15

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ItsTopher* 
SSD's are ok, but I beat the OCZ drive above in 4/5 catagories.








































My result is with one drive, wait till i RAID up all 3 tomorrow


----------



## ItsTopher

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
My result is with one drive, wait till i RAID up all 3 tomorrow









Lol I just looked up a benchmark of 3x OCZ SSD's...

Guess my win is going to be short lived


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:


Originally Posted by *almighty15* 
Ive added my results to the spreadsheet









Personally i would add 'number of drives' and RAID mode to the list aswel









I thought the "Other" area would be a good place to add those. I'll just leave it the way it is.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby* 
wierdo124: thanks for the speradsheet! Good idea. I like that anyone can add to it.

Also a good idea!


----------



## xXDarkenSoulXx

Heres mine


















Update:
old compaq drive


----------



## xxicrimsonixx

2x WD5000AAKS in RAID 0


----------



## Robilar

That's correct. I am having one of the others mods transfer the TS ownership.


----------



## Subayai

My 640gb western digital:









And my 450GB 15k.6 Cheetah:


----------



## -n7-

Intel X25-M 80 GB









1.5 TB Seagate









Hitachi 1 TB









Samsung 1 TB









Seagate 1 TB









WD 1 TB Green (my very first 1 TB drive)









Old WD Raptor 150 GB









Old WD 500 GB









Another old WD 500 GB (different model)









I put those two mismatched WD 500 GBs in RAID-0 on the crap Marvell controller on my mobo (LOL terrible performance; don't care as it's a backup drive).









Old Maxtor 500 GB









Old Seagate 500 GB


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:



Originally Posted by *-n7-*


(lots of pics)


WOW, thanks. If you could input those into the spreadsheet it would be a VERY good contribution








http://www.overclock.net/6515754-post232.html


----------



## Robilar

Once you get your chart updated and moved to the first post (now that I've assigned you ownership), I'll consider turning this thread into a sticky.


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Robilar* 
Once you get your chart updated and moved to the first post (now that I've assigned you ownership), I'll consider turning this thread into a sticky.

Chart updated? It updates itself...


----------



## Deagle50ae

My seagate 1.5TB


----------



## Lord Xeb

<.< here are mine. I plan on getting a 3rd drive for my system eventually


----------



## wierdo124

OP has had all new content added. Please let me know if you're having issues. I'd appreciate it if everyone could make sure their data is there.

You cannot update the spreadsheet, only add new data. Please contact me if there's a mistake.


----------



## scottb75

2 x 120GB Vertex (raid-0)


----------



## superon

*2 Seagate 7200.10 80GB RAID 0 (Nforce4 chipset)*
35 MB/s min - 141 MB/s max - 106 MB/s avg - 147 MB/s burst - 16.4ms access










*1 Seagate 7200.11 350GB*
38 MB/s min - 70 MB/s max - 62 MB/s avg - 151 MB/s burst - 13.2ms access










*WD Cavier Green 1TB*
41 MB/s min - 95 MB/s max - 72 MB/s avg - 150 MB/s burst - 14.1ms access


----------



## scottb75

My ATTO results for those interested.


----------



## hclarkjr

here is mine


----------



## hclarkjr

here is my storage drive


----------



## guyladouche

Results attached


----------



## Win == True

Thats was faster than I thought


----------



## pippolo

The first 5 disks are connected to a LSI 1068E SAS controller:

an old Seagate 500 GB and a new 500 GB









a Seagate 1.5 TB and a Western Digital Green 1 TB









and a Seagate SAS 15K.5 73GB









The last 2 are connected to the motherboard chipset (Intel i5400):

an old Seagate 300 GB and another Seagate 1.5 TB (the speed is a little different to the previous due to the different controller)









The motherboard is a Tyan i5400XT and the OS is Vista Ultimate x64 SP1


----------



## wire

Heres mine. 2 Seagate 7200.12 500GB in Raid 0 (ICHR9)

Burst Rate seems a little low but check it out!


----------



## broken pixel

ICH9- RAID 0, 128K stripe (I think) sporting three x WD360ADFD (Old school raptors )
.








..








...








..:


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

I just picked up another 150GB Velociraptor for a total of three in RAID 0 on an ICH10R controller.









Operating Slice: 150 GB (161 GB)
Stripe = 16 KB
Min: 228.3 MB/sec
Max: 353.0 MB/sec
Avg: 333.4 MB/sec
Access: 6.0 ms
Burst: 2005.7 MB/sec










Storage Slice: 269 GB (289 GB)
Stripe = 128 KB
Min: 207.9 MB/sec
Max: 315.4 MB/sec
Avg: 269.0 MB/sec
Access: 6.6 ms
Burst: 1482.7 MB/sec


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby* 
I just picked up another 150GB Velociraptor for a total of three in RAID 0 on an ICH10R controller.









Operating Slice: 150 GB (161 GB)
Stripe = 16 KB
Min: 228.3 MB/sec
Max: 353.0 MB/sec
Avg: 333.4 MB/sec
Access: 6.0 ms
Burst: 2005.7 MB/sec










Storage Slice: 269 GB (289 GB)
Stripe = 128 KB
Min: 207.9 MB/sec
Max: 315.4 MB/sec
Avg: 269.0 MB/sec
Access: 6.6 ms
Burst: 1482.7 MB/sec










Sweet







please enter that info into the OP


----------



## Wattes

Another run with:
Write-Back Cache : *Enabled*
Which really made a difference in the burst speeds










Disks: Dual WD1500AHFD (old raptors) in Raid 0
Controller: ICH9R onboard

Transfer Rate Minimum : 92.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 159.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 134.2 MB/sec
Access Time : 8.2 ms
Burst Rate : 1664.7 MB/sec
CPU Usage : -1.0%

Attachment 117464


----------



## heathmcabee

Here are my results of my 2 (WD1600HLFS) 160G Velociraptors in Raid 0 with my onboard 680i motherboard.


----------



## Playapplepie

Here are my results.


----------



## DennisC

Can you edit mine where it says other because I put the wrong number.


----------



## tenchimuyo93

Seagate 320GB
Hitachi 1TB

Attachment 117472
Attachment 117473


----------



## BioHzrd

Western Digital Caviar Black 500GB


----------



## sdla4ever




----------



## sdla4ever




----------



## wierdo124

Bump.


----------



## Silviastud

My results with my newly installed SSD.

Brand Kingston
Series SSDNow V-Series
Model SNV125-S2BN/128GB
Device Type Internal Solid state disk (SSD)
Architecture MLC

Min: 62.5 MB/sec
Max: 100.0 MB/sec
Avg: 92.4 MB/sec
Access: 0.2 ms
Burst: 83.3 MB/sec
CPU Usage: 4.6%


----------



## eflyguy

Two 80GB Intel X25M SSD's in RAID 0, writeback cache off


----------



## eflyguy

Ditto, writeback cache on

Both of mine are on my i7 rig, P6T Deluxe (V1) with onboard Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R/ICH10R SATA RAID Controller


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Wow! That's some difference!


----------



## philhalo66

here is my slow piece of poop


----------



## philhalo66

here is my backup 250 gig


----------



## LunchboxDDS

1. Intel X25-M G2 alone
2. Velociraptor 300GB
3. Seagate 7200.12 1TBs in RAID1 (Replaced #4)
4. WB Caviar Black 1TBs in RAID1 (FAILURE)


----------



## AxEmAn

Nvidia Stripe 1600GB
Seagate 7200.10 7200rpm 400GB
Four drives in Raid 0


----------



## optiCal3

2 Seagate 7200.11 1TB in Raid0


----------



## CravinR1

Seagate 7200.10 320 gig x 2 Raid 0 128K stripe









WD 640 AAKS backup


----------



## Blameless

Added my drive/results from page 18 to the spreadsheet.


----------



## Sozin

Just a cheap drive I picked up a few months back.

Transfer Rate:
min: 30.6 MB/s
max: 71.7 MB/s
average: 57.7 MB/s

Access Time:
21.1 ms

Burst Rate:
116.4 MB/sec

Cpu Usage:
-1.0%


----------



## kromar

heres my old samsung drive 120gb (sp1213c)








and heres my new samsung drive 1tb ()








i notice the speed diference, i have 2 of the old drives, any idea what speed i could expect if i wold create a raid0 with them?


----------



## AmgMake

My new Western Digital Black 1Tb


----------



## GJF47

My new WDC640 Blacks in RAID0


----------



## DEC_42

Is there a reason as to why we have to use v2.55?


----------



## Bazmecc

because it's completely free, no 15 day trial?


----------



## DEC_42

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bazmecc* 
because it's completely free, no 15 day trial?

But I won't get raged at if I post results using HDTune 3.50, right?


----------



## mothow

mine


----------



## Bazmecc

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DEC_42* 
But I won't get raged at if I post results using HDTune 3.50, right?


a lot of people have, if you look back through the posts...doesn't really matter, doesn't change anything anyway


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DEC_42* 
But I won't get raged at if I post results using HDTune 3.50, right?

It's fine.


----------



## kyleax1

Ok so Post #271 vs #285... should that be telling me that 2 WD Black 640's in Raid 0 is better then a single SSD if its less then 170mb/s Read?

How much importance is access time in the mix of everything (especially loading games)?

I'm a bit confused about how to tell which is better other than 400mb/s is better then 300mb/s


----------



## Bazmecc

you won't see much difference in loading games...loading programs, yes...but games/levels still take a long time to load (relative to programs)


----------



## mjl4878

here's mine

http://img195.imageshack.us/i/hdtune...amd20strh.png/


----------



## wiz

I have two WD6400AAKS drives in RAID 0 with my GA-EP45-UD3P motherboard.

*HD Tune: Intel Raid 0 Volume Benchmark*
*Transfer Rate Minimum*: 97.4 MB/sec
*Transfer Rate Maximum*: 215.3 MB/sec
*Transfer Rate Average*: 173.4 MB/sec
*Access Time*: 16.2 ms
*Burst Rate*: 137.1 MB/sec

Proof:


----------



## Bazmecc

I think you have AAM turned to low (128)...those drives can do sub 12ms access when it's on high (254)...unless you prefer them to be quiet


----------



## eflyguy

WD Green 1TB


----------



## eflyguy

Samsung EcoGreen 1TB


----------



## eflyguy

Single Intel X25 (pulled one out of the array so I can get the benefit of SSD on two systems..







)..


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Wow @ the X25!


----------



## eflyguy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby*


Wow @ the X25!










The RAID setup was posted a few weeks back, yeah - it is now slower in transfer, but I notice no difference using the system.
..a


----------



## Pao

I just ran the program and my burst rate seemed very low, 96.6, any specific culprits I should be looking at?


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pao* 
I just ran the program and my burst rate seemed very low, 96.6, any specific culprits I should be looking at?

That sounds about right for a single HDD. - Its SSDs and RAIDS that can do the crazy brust rates.

edit: ok maybe that is a bit slow. Have you disabled the acoustic management?


----------



## Pao

I've disabled nothing, it's actually a fairly fresh install.

Edit for picture. Everything seems a tad low to me tbh.


----------



## CravinR1

if you have intel ich southbridges install Intel Matrix Storage Manager (gave me a great performance boost)


----------



## eflyguy

.. or install your chipset drivers..








http://www.gigabyte.us/Support/Mothe...t%29#anchor_os
..a


----------



## nodon

2 Seagate's 640's (7200.11) in RAID 0

HD Tune: NVIDIA STRIPE 1.16T Benchmark
Transfer Rate Minimum : 106.2 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 215.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 164.5 MB/sec
Access Time : 14.4 ms
Burst Rate : 92.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 9.0%

(spreadsheeted also)


----------



## CurlyFire

Quote:



Originally Posted by *eflyguy*


Ditto, writeback cache on

Both of mine are on my i7 rig, P6T Deluxe (V1) with onboard Intel(R) ICH8R/ICH9R/ICH10R SATA RAID Controller


I tried the same kind of setup, however I can't seem to get the same performance as you got.

Here's my setup :
- i7 920
- Asus P6T SE
- 3 Gb DDR3
- 2 X25-M (generation 2) on the ICH10R in raid0
- Windows (64) 7 RC

I got 278mb/sec with the raid array. I thought it sucked compared to what you got. So I tried with just 1 drive to see how it fared. And I scored 224mb/sec. I didn't think the 54mb/s that I got from putting them in raid 0 was worth it. I tried installing all the drivers that came with the mobo to see if it made any difference, but it didn't.

The only thing I can think of is the motherboard. Do you think it makes a difference that you got the P6T deluxe ?

I tried to send you a message directly, but I don't think this forum supports this. Please help me, I'm really stuck.

Thanks

CurlyFire


----------



## r0nd3L

Wow, mine sucks.

It's about 5 year old Seagate 80GB SATA. Why does it dip so low?


----------



## CurlyFire

Allright, I found the option write back to cache was disabled.. I was sure it was enabled.. Ah well. Now we're talking! 527.6MB/Sec read!









Setup:

Processor: i7 920
Motherboard : Asus P6T SE
Memory: 3x1GB DDR3
Raid Controller: ICH10R onborad
Drives : 2x intel X25-M SSD generation 2


----------



## eflyguy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CurlyFire*


Allright, I found the option write back to cache was disabled.. I was sure it was enabled.. Ah well. Now we're talking! 527.6MB/Sec read!










Looks like you found the issue.. the boards have the same controller, btw. There may be slight performance differences between the boards, but the basic chipset and SATA controller are capable of moving data WAY faster than the drives can provide it, so that wouldn't be the issue..
..a


----------



## CravinR1

I still say install intel matrix drivers if you havn't done so already


----------



## opty165

2x 160gb Raptor sata150


----------



## YuR!34

my contribution.


----------



## wierdo124

Cleaned up form and updated some stuff.


----------



## egerds

Nvidia stripe cost me $147.98 (73.99 shell shocker 09-10-2009) from new egg and are are 2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148433 using my xfx 680i lt bios

all 3 other drives are http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822136359 $279.95 2 other drives are in basement 2 (55.99 shell shocker 09-24-2009)


----------



## r0nd3L

Here is a run of Hitachi 160GB 2.5" HDD that I took out from a laptop.


----------



## eflyguy

It is amazing how poor some stock laptop drives perform. In many cases, it's the best upgrade you can give them!
..a


----------



## Bazmecc

but they probably use less power...sometimes battery life is more important to a laptop


----------



## eflyguy

Not if it takes you 10x longer to do anything!








..a


----------



## CravinR1

i'm fairly happy with my 320 gig seagate 5400.6 performance (don't have a saved copy of the run)

Though the run was close to this one:


----------



## FtW 420

Single corsair 32 gb ssd.


----------



## Murderous Moppet

RAID0 WD Caviar Black 640GB.
I didn't set it to use all of the space on both drives when I did it for some reason, I was tired and forget why.








This decent?


----------



## Jeff78

2x Seagate ST3250310NS in RAID0 (64 stripe), Short Stroked to 10%.


----------



## TriggerHappy57

3 x SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD502HJ Raid0


----------



## Bonz(TM)

7x WD Black 1TB's in RAID5.

Have another one coming in the mail. Will post another update when I have 8.


----------



## runeazn

WD re-4gp wd2002fyps 2tb x2 in raid 0 benchmark :

edit 2.55 hdtune version :


----------



## CravinR1

***


----------



## brandon6199

WD Caviar Black 640GB:

MIN: 53.1 MB/sec
MAX: 113.7 MB/sec
AVG: 89.6 MB/sec
Access Time: 12.1 ms
Burst Rate: 145.2 MB/sec


----------



## tehmaggot

2x32GB OCZ Vertex in raid-0.


----------



## spice003

HD Tune: WDC WD1001FALS-00J7B0 Benchmark - 1TB Caviar Black

Transfer Rate Minimum : 58.8 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 109.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 89.7 MB/sec
Access Time : 12.1 ms
Burst Rate : 117.8 MB/sec
CPU Usage : -1.0%


HD Tune: ST3500410AS Benchmark - Seagate 7200.12

Transfer Rate Minimum : 45.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 128.5 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 105.1 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.3 ms
Burst Rate : 168.8 MB/sec
CPU Usage : -1.0%


----------



## jimibgood




----------



## Capwn

First drive is my primary HDD (Seagate Barracuda 7200.12)
Second is for whatever (off off brand WD afaik 7200 )


----------



## runeazn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CravinR1* 
***

what you mean?


----------



## Pao

How important is burst rate, or what does it affect?

I am liking most of my numbers coming from my raid array, but I've noticed no matter how I have the array set up my burst is always right around 100-105, doesn't really change. So I'm assuming it's a limitation of the sb750 on my MB? My average is right around 170ish, and my access time is about 8.5ms, which I think both are fine.


----------



## miklovinn

I already have 2 WD 640GB Caviar Blacks that are going RAID 0 just as soon as I get my, $49, final edition of Windows 7.(love it by the way). Hopefully I'll see a little performance increase, alot more space eitherway.


----------



## eflyguy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pao* 
How important is burst rate, or what does it affect?

Meaningless, nothing that matters.
..a


----------



## raisethe3

My Seagate 320GB HD.


----------



## TonyGrunt

Just installed 2 Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB in Raid0 and HDtune crapped out.








I wish it was true.


----------



## quaaark

7200.11


----------



## dafour

WDC 640 AALS (WD 640 Black)


----------



## nigel

1ST one is a western digital HDD 74gb. 2nd one is a seagate 1TB HDD.


----------



## nigel

delete this bit.


----------



## Ben the OCer

Here's my result with my two WD6400AAKS drives in RAID 0.


----------



## Artemis

My OCZ Vertex 30gb


----------



## esocid

WD 640 Black (6401AALS-00L382)

3x WD 1TB Green (WD10EADS) in RAID5


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *esocid* 
WD 640 Black (6401AALS-00L382)

3x WD 1TB Green (WD10EADS) in RAID5

Your AALS has a good score, but I love seeing my old AAKS beating AALS since everyone acts like there is no reason to consider the blues over the blacks.


----------



## sting_rayz

My Intel X25-M G2


----------



## kyleax1

2 WD 640 Blacks 6401AALS, using speeding sata ports to set up in raid instead of the intel driver ports. Warning to Maximus III owners or those thinking about buying one...Do not use the Speeding HDD ports as a raid if you want good results.










I think I will just get a SSD in a few months to make up for this. I have never been so disappointed in a build.


----------



## esocid

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


Your AALS has a good score, but I love seeing my old AAKS beating AALS since everyone acts like there is no reason to consider the blues over the blacks.


They increases are fairly minimal between blue and black. I only got it because it was pretty cheap, and Newegg was having some 10% off HDD sale, so I figured I'd get a black for the price of a blue. I have a 750 blue that is my primary drive, don't really notice anything.


----------



## Dee.

WD 640GB AAKS


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kyleax1*


2 WD 640 Blacks 6401AALS, using speeding sata ports to set up in raid instead of the intel driver ports. Warning to Maximus III owners or those thinking about buying one...Do not use the Speeding HDD ports as a raid if you want good results.










I think I will just get a SSD in a few months to make up for this. I have never been so disappointed in a build.


There is something not right with your raid 0 results. You are barely 10% over the speed of a single drive.


----------



## 1ceTr0n

I hate this drive


----------



## Old Hippie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *runeazn* 
WD re-4gp wd2002fyps 2tb x2 in raid 0 benchmark :










Definately a problem here.....

Why even post that?


----------



## Lt.JD

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kyleax1* 









Thats slow this is my RAID-0 AAKS


----------



## Ellis456

Windows 7 64
1x samsung f1 1tb

Why is my access time at 20ms for?.


----------



## kyleax1

OCZ Agility 60GB


----------



## BradleyW

Hey guy's. Am not sure my Westurn Digital 320GB Cavior WD3200AAKS is working at the speed it should. When the hdd is not in raid, it scored an "Access Rate" of "12.7"!

Is this normal or is the hdd configured in a non correct way. I am in ACHI Mode and ive installed all chipset drivers for the mobo including intel hdd drivers. (From the gigabyte disc)

I ran hdtune again.


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BradleyW*


Hey guy's. Am not sure my Westurn Digital 320GB Cavior WD3200AAKS is working at the speed it should. When the hdd is not in raid, it scored an "Access Rate" of "12.7"!

Is this normal or is the hdd configured in a non correct way. I am in ACHI Mode and ive installed all chipset drivers for the mobo including intel hdd drivers. (From the gigabyte disc)

I ran hdtune again.


If you look at the front page the is a lot of WD3200AAKS's and it looks to me that you are just a tad bit faster then most of them, so I wpuld say your fine.


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NoGuru*


If you look at the front page the is a lot of WD3200AAKS's and it looks to me that you are just a tad bit faster then most of them, so I wpuld say your fine.


Thanks for the extra info. My PC will not display the thing you speak of at the start of the page for some reason, that's why i had to ask.


----------



## Bazmecc

nvm...it just shows the same thing, here...bah


----------



## LiNERROR




----------



## crashnburn_819

Most people seem to be getting higher averages


----------



## eflyguy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LiNERROR* 









6, 1TB drives short stroked to 8GB each???
That's the ULTIMATE in short-stroking!








..a


----------



## kyleax1




----------



## eflyguy

2xMaxtor DiamondMax 21 320GB in RAID-0, short stroked to 10%..


----------



## ComGuards

VMWare ESXi Virtual Disk
Host Array - 8x WD 160GB RE, Dell PERC6/i controller.


----------



## Manyak

Oh hell, why not.


----------



## Volvo

my laptop drive.
you guys have yet to see my desktop drive.
the results are much more interesting...


----------



## Bazmecc

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Manyak* 
Oh hell, why not.










weird, my pants feel wet all of a sudden....


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ComGuards*


VMWare ESXi Virtual Disk
Host Array - 8x WD 160GB RE, Dell PERC6/i controller.











That's skewed by the controller cache. No way your 8 disks can read at 1500MB/s sustained.


----------



## Manyak

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


That's skewed by the controller cache. No way your 8 disks can read at 1500MB/s sustained.


If you think _that's_ skewed, look at this guy.


----------



## Volvo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Manyak* 
If you think _that's_ skewed, look at this guy.

literally, off-the-charts performance.


----------



## Volvo

hmm, no one noticed my 46 degree Celsius laptop drive?


----------



## the_beast

Everybody was too busy drooling over Manyak's SSD array...


----------



## Volvo

okay, nevermind then.
when the 78 degree Celsius desktop drive puts its picture up, y'all gonna take some notice for sure.








i'll circle it up


----------



## wierdo124

I deleted the people that didn't follow the rules. If you want to add yourself again, by all means go ahead...just follow the rules this time.


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Volvo* 
okay, nevermind then.
when the 78 degree Celsius desktop drive puts its picture up, y'all gonna take some notice for sure.








i'll circle it up

Erm, do you have it wrapped in a duvet? Or is it so fast it has caught fire?


----------



## Volvo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


Erm, do you have it wrapped in a duvet? Or is it so fast it has caught fire?


it has been doing that since day 1.
and oh, so far, it's fine.








four years and counting, at 78 degrees. WOOT!


----------



## the_beast

Put a thermometer on it - I think the temp sensor is broken. 78 degrees is way above spec...


----------



## Volvo

oh by the way, that's the Caviar for you.








maybe it dissipates heat poorly due to the fact that it isn't a Caviar Black.


----------



## Volvo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_beast* 
Put a thermometer on it - I think the temp sensor is broken. 78 degrees is way above spec...

will do.
but then again, i find it kinda fishy because speedfan, everest and hdtune all report this at 78 celsius. weird.


----------



## Unknownm

my dad's 40GB IDE is still kicking it. After a good defrag from mydefrag I'm happy to say these results are alright for a old HD (I believe it is)


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Volvo* 
will do.
but then again, i find it kinda fishy because speedfan, everest and hdtune all report this at 78 celsius. weird.

They all read the same temp sensor, so will all give the same temperature...


----------



## Izvire




----------



## Darius Silver

Old
Attachment 129356

New
Attachment 129357

I find it odd how with my raid0 the transfer rate starts low, peaks after a bit, then drops. Wonder if this means my outer edge of the platter is bad


----------



## Lu(ky

Here is a W7 fresh install today of my Intel SSD 80GB V2 using CrystalDiskMark


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lu(ky*


Here is a W7 fresh install today of my Intel SSD 80GB V2 using CrystalDiskMark











Please use HDTune, for consistency







thanks


----------



## Bazmecc

lol...thread title clearly says that too...


----------



## iandh

Here's my Samsung F3 500Gb in Raid 0

The minimum transfer rate is higher than the maximum transfer rate of my WD 320Gb's in Raid 0









These drives are FAST, and unlike the WD 320's, they're silent. Better access time as well.


----------



## MrMason

Here are my 1TB spinpoint F3's RAID 0 short stroked to 300GB.


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrMason* 
Here are my 1TB spinpoint F3's RAID 0 short stroked to 300GB.

That looks slow. Are you using the ICH10R, or the JMicron controller? I would imagine the JRAID in your pic means you are using the crappy controller.

Get your drives onto the ICH10R where they belong (use only the black SATA ports on your mobo), install the drivers & the Matrix Manager software, enable the performance options, and you will really see your drives shine.


----------



## IdPlease

I have just seen this thread. I have posted results from my two Samsung F3 1TB's in Raid 0 here

I can add the pics here if need be, just didn't want to duplicate anything till I was told it's ok









* Changed the link to the post. Should be better now


----------



## wierdo124

Quote:



Originally Posted by *IdPlease*


I have just seen this thread. I have posted results from my two Samsung F3 1TB's in Raid 0  here

I can add the pics here if need be, just didn't want to duplicate anything till I was told it's ok










I don't mind you posting in another thread as long as you link to the POST, not the thread


----------



## Danbeme32

I gave it a try..









This is from my other rig that is not folding..2x250 Seagate


----------



## mickfitz

Heres my Raptor 300gb


----------



## 5291Crash

Tested my drives
pics added

My CPU usage seems *HIGH*


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *5291Crash*


Tested my drives
pics added

My CPU usage seems *HIGH*


Looks like a virus scanner or other background process to me.


----------



## Conley

Not bad for one HD.


----------



## Zensou

Western Digital 750GB Caviar Black


----------



## pbears

single to be used at document disk...agility 120 coming in soon for OS and games disk


----------



## D3TH.GRUNT

here is my result


----------



## Deagle50ae

added my Raid-0 Seagate 1.5tb 7200rpm drives
Before write-back cache enabled









After write-back cache enabled


----------



## Dooginater

Not too bad.

That's my raptor btw. I just was about to start a test on my other HD.

WD3000GLFS


----------



## Burn

Looking mighty fine


----------



## Meta-Prometheus

This is two WD Caviar Blue's in a stripe array.


----------



## [Teh Root]

This is a Single WD Caviar Green 1TB Drive.


----------



## [Teh Root]

This is my Seagate Barracuda 750GB HD.


----------



## crashovride02

Here's mine!


----------



## KitRae

Here are Mine. Kind of Pathetic right?









First One - WD Black 640GB
Second One - WD Green 320GB


----------



## Deagle50ae

Quote:



Originally Posted by *KitRae*


Here are Mine. Kind of Pathetic right?









First One - WD Black 640GB
Second One - WD Green 320GB


Looin just fine actually.
That black could use either a good defrag or just make sure antivirus and anything that might access the HDD in the background is turned off; that's what those big dips are on the graph.


----------



## the_beast

The dips are most likely other programs accessing the drive.

Fragmentation does not affect the bench because the software does not read the files - it reads the blocks off the HDD directly. A defrag will have no impact.


----------



## Deagle50ae

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


The dips are most likely other programs accessing the drive.

Fragmentation does not affect the bench because the software does not read the files - it reads the blocks off the HDD directly. A defrag will have no impact.


Ahh, I stand corrected.
Good to know


----------



## ChickenInferno

Intel X-25M 80gb Yum


----------



## Lysdexik




----------



## ChickenInferno

Interesting. You have a higher minimum equivalent maximum and average speeds, but a lower burst rate. We are using different version though. I wonder if that will affect it.


----------



## the_beast

You can safely ignore the burst rate - it is essentially meaningless.

His numbers are different because his drive is different - the 160GB drive is faster than the 80GB drive.


----------



## ChickenInferno

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


You can safely ignore the burst rate - it is essentially meaningless.

His numbers are different because his drive is different - the 160GB drive is faster than the 80GB drive.


Besides the minimum speed, our drives appear almost identical. The difference in random access time are pretty much the same.


----------



## MADMAX22

Installed one of my wd640blacks in my current system. With the OS on it. Pretty nice drive, faster then the 250's that I had in there.


----------



## BradleyW

HDTune cannot find my short stroke partitions. What should i do?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BradleyW* 
HDTune cannot find my short stroke partitions. What should i do?

post your issue in a different/new thread so we can try and help you...


----------



## willis888




----------



## wiggy2k7

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KitRae* 
Here are Mine. Kind of Pathetic right?









First One - WD Black 640GB
Second One - WD Green 320GB

Your WD 640GB Black score looks a bit low, i have the same drive... Here's my score:


----------



## Core2uu




----------



## RunsCool

Here's mine. 2 Caviar Black 640GB in RAID-0. Anybody know why it the description says 'Stripe' instead of RAID-0?


----------



## Bazmecc

that's how it is with Nvidia...RAID0 is stripped, so that's what they have...if you did RAID1, it would probably say Mirror


----------



## Zeus

Here's the results of my tests run on three different rigs (1 laptop, 2 desktops)


----------



## chatch15117

3x WD Caviar Black(RAID0). Two of the drives are the 00L3B2 version with 1.03B01 Firmware, and the third is 00J7B1 with 5.00K05 Firmware. I didn't see any big differences when I tested the drives individually, except that the 00J7B1 is 3 times louder than the other drives.









WD Scorpio Black 320GB BEKT


----------



## dennyb

Got a new Samsung F3 a few days ago and would appreciate you guys and gals thoughts as to how it stacks up. I am thinking it is pretty decent---shortstroked to 120 gb


----------



## ACHILEE5

Hi denny








Looks good








But the thing is, you wont see the difference of short stroke with HD Tune. As it will only test the whole drive and not the partition








Unless it was done in Raid0








But I'm sure you will have speeded things by partitioning









Here is one of my WD640GB

















But I don't run them single










WD640GB Raid0 Short Stroke

























Crucial m225 64GB SSD Raid0


----------



## BradleyW

Hey ACHILEE5 and Dennyb!

Hey guy's, if my wd320 scores 12.5ms. If i created a partition of 12GB, what would be the ms time? HD Tune does not see partitions so i would like an estimate off you guys if possible. Cheers.


----------



## Bazmecc

is it single or dual platter? with that low an access time, it's gotta be dual, since my 320GB single platters get ~16ms

my 320's short stroked to 10gb on each in RAID0 gave me ~9ms, so your's would probably be even lower, ~7ms I'd say


----------



## BradleyW

My hdd is single platter non raid. 7ms sounds great! Thanks for the info. One more questions guys and i will leave for good lol. If i create a partition for every game i have, will they all run at this access speed or does it not work this way?


----------



## Bazmecc

that's just too much work, and there's no real benefit

the access time gets worse the more hard drive you use, since it's only that fast on the outer edge...as you get into the middle, it goes way up

I say you only need 2 partitions, maybe 3

1 for OS, 2nd for games, 3rd for other program/files


----------



## Manyak

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bazmecc*


the access time gets worse the more hard drive you use, since it's only that fast on the outer edge...as you get into the middle, it goes way up


Not quite true. The reason hard drives get slower as they get full is because they can no longer keep writing files sequentially, and they will have to jump around the platters like crazy to read anything. If each game is in it's own partition then that at least makes sure that all the data for that game is kept together no matter what happens.


----------



## Bazmecc

maybe I worded that wrong

looking at HDTune, the access times are low at the beginning (0%) of the drive and high at the end (100%)

I don't think HDTune cares if there's anything on the drive, access times are low on the outer edge, high on the inner edge

that's how I understood that anyways


----------



## Manyak

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bazmecc*


maybe I worded that wrong

looking at HDTune, the access times are low at the beginning (0%) of the drive and high at the end (100%)

I don't think HDTune cares if there's anything on the drive, access times are low on the outer edge, high on the inner edge

that's how I understood that anyways


That's because HDTune and other test programs measure access time from the beginning of the drive to random points on the platter and average out the results. The algorithm goes something like this:

- read sector 0
- generate random number X
- start timer
- read sector X
- stop timer
- loop the above


----------



## Bazmecc

I see...makes sense then...


----------



## Manyak

I should be more specific though:

The resulting IOPs do decrease near the end of the drive. IOPs are affected both by both the access time and sequential transfer speed (basically saying how many times can it complete a full operation each second), so when the sequential transfer speed decreases so do the IOPs.

_However_, this decrease isn't enough to drastically change loading speeds. Putting Windows on a partition at the end of the drive vs at the beginning would only add maybe 1-2s to the boot time, or maybe 1s extra to loading a level in a game. But using a full hard drive with one giant partition (that can't be defragmented anymore) can add a whole minute or two sometimes.

The rules change with certain server apps, but for desktop use it's nothing you need to worry about if you divide the partitions well (except for pure sequential access).


----------



## onlycodered

I love my Caviar Black!


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

two wd6400AAKS's in raid 0 short stroked total 640gb's :


----------



## Vargess

The attached is my laptop's seagate 500gb drive I got with my Dell XPS 1640.

19.1ms access time.. Does that sound about right for a laptop drive? Comparing to my WD Blacks or even a desktop seagate I have, this sucks


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Laptop HDDs usually spin at 5400 rpm. (to save power?) A WD Black will always be faster than this type of drive.

Zeus' laptop time is close to yours even though they're different models.


----------



## Vargess

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fletcher Carnaby* 
Laptop HDDs usually spin at 5400 rpm. (to save power?) A WD Black will always be faster than this type of drive.

Zeus' laptop time is close to yours even though they're different models.


It's a 7200 drive









My laptop is not meant for saving power lol. I upgraded almost everything on it I could







BluRay, 4670 video, AMOLED 1080p screen, etc.

My external Seagate 500gig usb connected drive get an 18.6ms time comparing


----------



## Nexu

Re-installed my system last weekend, decided to use 'the other' RAID capable SATA controller on my motherboard (Asus Maximus II Formula).

These are the 2 disks (Seagate Barracuda 7200.12) i used for the RAID0 setup:
















As RAID0 on 'the old' controller (SIL5723):









As RAID0 on 'the other' controller (ICH10R), short-stroked 300GB volume for Windows 7:









The remaining disk space is setup as a separate volume for video captures/editing (the first 454GB anyway, the rest of the second RAID0 volume is partitioned but unused other wise):









Intel Storage Matrix say Write-back cache is enabled, but i haven't bothered to test this with disabling it and run benchmarks on that.

Sometimes good stuff comes to those who waits ... or something like that. I had a Samsung Spinpoint F1 (HD103UJ) with tons of SMART errors in my possession for a while. Should have brought/send it back for RMA monthsssssssssss ago. But never came to it. Finally returned the broken drive back to the store and had it replaced ... and got upgraded to a better model (HD103SJ) at no charge! Some screenshots of free performance upgrade


----------



## biledemon

HD Tune result 1

Attachment 133936

HD Tune result 2

Attachment 133937


----------



## chatch15117

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Vargess* 
The attached is my laptop's seagate 500gb drive I got with my Dell XPS 1640.

19.1ms access time.. Does that sound about right for a laptop drive? Comparing to my WD Blacks or even a desktop seagate I have, this sucks









My laptop's WD Scorpio Black 320GB has 14.8ms access time.


----------



## hxcnero

my two westerndigital 750 blacks in raid 0


----------



## eflyguy

Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3750640AS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA

Min/Max/Avg: 37/82/65 MB/Sec
Access Time: 15.2 ms
Burst Rate: 155 MB/Sec


----------



## eflyguy

Maxtor DiamondMax 21 STM3500630AS 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA

Min/Max/Avg: 31/75/61 MB/Sec
Access Time: 13.5 ms
Burst Rate: 91 MB/Sec


----------



## eflyguy

Western Digital Caviar Blue WD3200AAJS 320GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA

Min/Max/Avg: 34/80/62 MB/Sec
Access Time: 12.7 ms
Burst Rate: 122 MB/Sec


----------



## Deano12345

2x Samsung F3 500GB RAID0 (On the ICH10R) Short stroked to 200GB


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deano12345* 









2x Samsung F3 500GB RAID0 (On the ICH10R) Short stroked to 200GB

impressive


----------



## Deano12345

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CravinR1* 
impressive









Thank you,I'm half thinking of getting another 2 during summer for 4 disk RAID


----------



## o Baby Zeus

*HDD Model*
2x WD Velociraptor 150gb in Raid0

*Transfer Rate:*

Min/Max/Avg: 127.9/202.7/174.9 MB/Second

Access Time: 7.6 ms

Burst Rate: 176.8 MB/sec

CPU usage: 1.%


----------



## paynebabes

Newer version of HD Tune, only just realised


----------



## freakb18c1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *paynebabes*











Newer version of HD Tune, only just realised


















holy $#%$#


----------



## paynebabes

Not too bad!


----------



## freakb18c1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *paynebabes*


Not too bad!











yo how is that new tuniq tower i havent seen too many people with it


----------



## paynebabes

Good, ill screen my core temp annd cpu n stuff


----------



## paynebabes

There you go. I used cheap assed thermal grease so its probably 2-3 lower on load with some TX-3 or AS-5.

Bit off topic


----------



## Bazmecc

woah, so 4.0 let's you short-stroke test without having to short-stroke the drives? nice...


----------



## shnur

Ok got tested my 4 drives... none are empty so it's more showing real-world situations... (also the Hitachi's health is not so great, hence the bad performance)

The OCZ Vertex is... fast, really fast.

----

HDD Model
Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00 (160GB; 2.5"; 5,4k RPM)

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 24.6/47.7/37.2 MB/Second

Access Time: 17.3 ms

Burst Rate: 107.2 MB/sec

CPU usage: -1.0%

----

HDD Model
OCZ Vertex Turbo (64GB; 2.5"; inifine RPM







)

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 164.9/220.0/200.7 MB/Second

Access Time: 0.1 ms

Burst Rate: 223.9 MB/sec

CPU usage: -1.0%

---

HDD Model
WDC WD10EADS-65L5B1 (1TB; 3.5"; 7,2k RPM; Green)

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 41.0/95.8/70.4 MB/Second

Access Time: 20.1 ms

Burst Rate: 191.1 MB/sec

CPU usage: -1.0%

---

HDD Model
WDC WD5000AAKS-22YGA0 (500GB; 3.5"; 7,2k RPM; Blue)

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 38.4/83.3/64.4 MB/Second

Access Time: 13.4 ms

Burst Rate: 156.5 MB/sec

CPU usage: -1.0%


----------



## eflyguy

Fujitsu MHY2200BH 200GB 5400 RPM 8MB Cache 2.5" SATA 1.5Gb/s Notebook Hard Drive

(What my VAIO laptop came with - FAIL!)









Min shows 3.7 but that's an access spike. Real minimum was 20.

Max 49.2, ave 37. 19.2ms Access.









Better yet, look at CPU!!!


----------



## shnur

Quote:



Originally Posted by *eflyguy*


Fujitsu MHY2200BH 200GB 5400 RPM 8MB Cache 2.5" SATA 1.5Gb/s Notebook Hard Drive

(What my VAIO laptop came with - FAIL!)









Min shows 3.7 but that's an access spike. Real minimum was 20.

Max 49.2, ave 37. 19.2ms Access.









Better yet, look at CPU!!!


Wow.. that's impressive results... especially the CPU usage; how old is the rest of the computer?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eflyguy* 
Fujitsu MHY2200BH 200GB 5400 RPM 8MB Cache 2.5" SATA 1.5Gb/s Notebook Hard Drive

(What my VAIO laptop came with - FAIL!)









Min shows 3.7 but that's an access spike. Real minimum was 20.

Max 49.2, ave 37. 19.2ms Access.









Better yet, look at CPU!!!

CPU usage is pretty much meaningless - the same operation that caused those downward spikes in transfer speed is probably responsible for the stupidly high cpu usage also.


----------



## eflyguy

VAIO VGN-NR285E - Dual core 1.67GHz 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium. I'm selling it..








It's actually a very nice laptop, and has a great display, but I haven't used it since I bought my macbook..
..a


----------



## HAZED

Results of my WDC Black 1TB in full capacity and short stroked form.

Full



















SS 66GB , look at the IOP and random access times!


----------



## dennyb

Short stroked vs Full Disc


----------



## kiselk

HDD Model
RAID0 128K stripe size
2xKingston SNM225 80GB (Intel X25-M G2 inside)

Transfer Rate (8MB chunk): 
Min/Max/Avg: 383.5/516.0/507.5 MB/Second
Access Time: 0.1 ms
Burst Rate: 184.1 MB/sec
CPU usage: -1.0%


----------



## navit

here is mine


----------



## drevin

Results for my new 1Tb Caviar Black WD1001FALS-00E3A (2x500Gb platters):


----------



## loop2kil

I actually got a better burst rate with the newer version of Hdtune but here is my 2.55 result...how did I get a -1% cpu usage?










here's the one from version 4.01:


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loop2kil* 
I actually got a better burst rate with the newer version of Hdtune but here is my 2.55 result...how did I get a -1% cpu usage?

Because burst rate and cpu usage are essentially meaningless due to the highly innacurate way in which they are measured.

You can usually safely ignore both measurements. Only if the burst rate is super-low, coupled with low transfer rates, can it indicate a potential problem with your storage setup.


----------



## CravinR1

I'm still amazed how the cheaper AAKS (blue) WD 640's are generally faster than the AALS (black)


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CravinR1* 
I'm still amazed how the cheaper AAKS (blue) WD 640's are generally faster than the AALS (black)

based on what? I have not drawn that conclusion...


----------



## CravinR1

Look through the list and compare the blue (aaks) to the black (aals) and you'll see that the aaks are generally faster (average in *bold*)

BLUE/AAKS
Subayai Western Digital WD6400AAKS 50.9 111.1 *89.6* 15.9 146.8
CravinR1 Western Digital WD6400AAKS-00A7B 58.9 114.7 *93.9* 13 140.6
Dee. Western Digital WD6400AAKS 55.3 113.5 *93.2* 12.3 132

BLACK/AALS
dafour Western Digital WD6401AALS 59.2 118 *94* 11.7 114.4 Single SATA
esocid Western Digital WD6401AALS 35 113.1 *89.2* 12.2 146.7
KitRae Western Digital WD6401AALS 40 111.4 *86.6* 12 145.9
MADMAX22 Western Digital WS6401AALS 45.4 103.6 *80.6* 12.1 137.9 1x640drive,ich10r,vista64
onlycodered Western Digital WD6401AALS 42.7 118.3 *94.8* 12 145.6 Windows 7 Professional x64


----------



## Bazmecc

I noticed that too...I think it may be because of the 2nd processor on there? maybe it switches between them, and the slight delay causes the slow down or something

but I bought one because 2 years extra warranty is worth $5 to me


----------



## CravinR1

I've had generally good luck with hd's and in my experience if they last 2 years they'll last 5


----------



## dennyb

Just got my F3s in a RAID 0. Here are the results


















Do they look about right?
Here they are shortstroked to 80gb


----------



## NoGuru

Not sure how this is.


----------



## BradleyW

Not bad NoGuru. Beat my hitachi lol


----------



## deathshad

Samy f3s raid-0







first test


----------



## smokinson

Here are my results for my SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 HD502HJ 500GB 7200 RPM 16M


----------



## Munkypoo7

My Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black


----------



## vi3t_boy

new result with 3x WD 500 black in RAID0 short stroke.


----------



## antuk15

Mine, 2x Cheap and cheerful 320Gb Hitachi Deskstar drives with 8mb cache

Does the performance seem Ok considering there cheap cost and spec?


----------



## wierdo124

Looks decent. Make sure you backup the data on those Deathstars


----------



## deathshad

Samsung HD502HJ (no raid since second hdd had issues and has been shipped away for a replacement)


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wierdo124*


Looks decent. Make sure you backup the data on those Deathstars










Deathstars?

Dammit man, this is not 2001. And they are not even made by the same company, nor using the same technology anymore. Please let the Deathstar nickname die with the failed products it applied to, rather than re-hash it every time someone mentions a prefectly serviceable, and possibly the most reliable, currently available series of drives...


----------



## svtfmook




----------



## Nexus6




----------



## CJRhoades

Junk...









EDIT:
Should I be worried about this?


----------



## jcharlesr75

Here is my benchie and i wasnt impressed at all. I used to be big into storage bandwidth, but i lost it somewhere along the way. So i ordered a second gen 64gb Kingston V, not the plus. Im expecting big things from it. Ill post a new bechmark when i get it installed and running.


----------



## ceemuk

Would somebody care to analyse these benchies, I'm not sure if the numbers are right.

3x Seagate .12 500GB RAID0 on intel P55, shortstroke 750GB.


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ceemuk* 
Would somebody care to analyse these benchies, I'm not sure if the numbers are right.

3x Seagate .12 500GB RAID0 on intel P55, shortstroke 750GB.


















Do you have write-back caching enabled?

For future reference, don't use this thread to ask questions though - start a new one...


----------



## ceemuk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_beast* 
Do you have write-back caching enabled?

For future reference, don't use this thread to ask questions though - start a new one...

Yes to write back caching, I will create a follow on thread.


----------



## BradleyW

I think hard drive benchmark questions should be allowed without being shot down in flames for asking seen as its HDTune related!


----------



## jcharlesr75

Here is the rest for my new Kingston V drive. Its actually faster than advertised if you can believe that.


----------



## eflyguy

iomega ix4-200d NAS with 4 ST31000520AS 1TB drives running

in RAID-10, allocated .5TB to an iSCSI volume, so across my GB LAN, here's what HD Tune thinks of it..

Nothing compared to local disk access but as fast as a 3.5" USB external drive.


----------



## NoGuru

This is my new RAID0


----------



## eskaryo

2 Kingston SNV425-S2/64GB I bought due to a few posts on these forums. New to SSD's so I'm uncertain what kind of magic or hoohah I got here.

i5 @ 4ghz
ICH10R
Gigabyte P55A-UD3


----------



## eskaryo

Overnight something magical happened and my #'s basically doubled.


----------



## CJRhoades




----------



## BIGGUN

2x1tb Samsung F3 .


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoGuru* 
This is my new RAID0

That does not look right mate. I get lower Access speed time with just 1 HDD on it's own. WD320GB Cavior Blue.


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BradleyW* 
That does not look right mate. I get lower Access speed time with just 1 HDD on it's own. WD320GB Cavior Blue.

RAIDing disks doesn't lower access time - in fact it (usually) increases it.

That bench looks fine for non short-stroked disks.


----------



## CryWin

500GB Caviar Blue. Just picked her up yesterday from Microcenter @ $49.99, I was suprised by the results, the access time isn't impressing though.


----------



## kiwwanna

I need to un-raid my SSD's and do a secure erase as they've gotten slower... but this is what they are now.

4 Corsair X32's on a Adaptec Raid 51645

Attachment 146081


----------



## moward

Intel X25-M 80Gb G2 SSD










2 x Samsung 1TB F3's RAID 0, short stroked to 500Gb


----------



## chatch15117

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moward* 
Intel X25-M 80Gb G2 SSD

2 x Samsung 1TB F3's RAID 0, short stroked to 500Gb


Download the Intel Matrix Storage drivers and turn on write-back cache in the console. It'll increase the F3's speeds.


----------



## CULLEN




----------



## moward

BIOS properly set up and Write back cache enabled


----------



## mcastaneda68

Intel SSD 80 GB G2 on a Dell Inspiron 1520 laptop


----------



## mcastaneda68

Single Seagate ST3250310AS on Asus P5Q-EM MoBo


----------



## mcastaneda68

2 x ST3250310AS on RAID0, 64KB Stripe size, on ASUS P5Q-EM MoBo


----------



## rumel1988

WD CBlue(WD3200AAJS) 320GB*3 RAID o

Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 125.6/303.9/244.0 (MB/Second)

Access Time: 15.1 ms

Burst Rate: 1868.3 MB/second


----------



## shadman

WD 1tb Black, short stroked to 100gb, I have had this for awhile, 23.3 gb used, its my video editing rig (sig rig) and I like to keep it clean and defrag and stuff. FRom what I can tell, its pretty good for this drive. Looking maybe to Raid0 some cheapie small drives though...any suggestions?


----------



## FallenFaux

I just replaced my 2 WD 320GB AAKS (16Mb) drives with 2 750Gb AALS (32MB) drives. I've got them short-stroked to 500Gb atm.










Pretty happy with the results so far


----------



## JH4DC5

i think mine's broke. lol










will RMA shortly


----------



## CryWin

Don't use the computer while running HDTune and it shoudln't do that as much.


----------



## Bazmecc

looking at that graph, I'm reminded of what happened when I benched my WD 1TB green drive when I got it a few weeks back

I forgot what the issue was or how I fixed it, but there's most likely nothing wrong with your drive, just need to enable write-back cache or something (again, not sure what the fix was)...


----------



## Moynesy

Here is my latest bench. Had RAID 0 for just over a year now and cannot remember the intial bench's I done. Believe still same and nothing wrong.


----------



## eflyguy

HD Tune: WDC WD20EADS-00S2B0 Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 49.4 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 112.9 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 84.9 MB/sec
Access Time : 14.1 ms
Burst Rate : 160.9 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 1.2%


----------



## eflyguy

HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD103SI Benchmark

Transfer Rate Minimum : 50.0 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum : 106.7 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average : 84.2 MB/sec
Access Time : 15.5 ms
Burst Rate : 147.2 MB/sec
CPU Usage : 1.9%


----------



## eflyguy

I think I've managed to pull all of the RAID setups out:


----------



## Fletcher Carnaby

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eflyguy* 
I think I've managed to pull all of the RAID setups out:

Hey, this is pretty cool! Nice use of the data. I wonder if google docs lets you insert that type of chart and have it update automatically with the spread sheet? ...that'd be cool!

Regardless, nice work!


----------



## eflyguy

I had to manually edit a lot of the data, i.e. there are a couple of dozen RAID setups that don't have RAID in the description. They have to be excluded or the "normal" drives' relatively small numbers would be hard to see..

I thought about doing another chart for RAID'd drives, but there are too many variations for that to be useful..
..a


----------



## CravinR1

Sorry, my seagate 7200.10's are not listed as a raid setup and they are (though not very impressive anymore)


----------



## Rylen

1TB Seagate Constellation ES

First time ever doing this.


----------



## gosmeyer




----------



## CravinR1

wow, what more is there to say

That is crazy fast


----------



## phospholipid




----------



## Velathawen




----------



## Myrlin

I might RAID soon.


----------



## CravinR1




----------



## Gabkicks

I just got the Western digital 1tb HDD SATAIII ( i am running it SATA II). the drive isnt even formatted, i just slapped it in and ran hd tune.

WD100FAEX


----------



## spinejam

Sammy's RAID0 300mb short-stroke


----------



## ToeMass

Is this forum still alive in 1Q/ 2010 if so my mechanical drives might help some on the decision point of SSD versus HDD?

I have 4 HDD so far but would welcome two more for a total of six I have 6-ports?

Short stroke RAID 0 e.g. 10% total platter/disk and under helps achieve 500MB/s sustain read throughput does that make normal SATA 3GB/s drives better than SSD?

I tried other RAIDs e.g. 1, 0+1, 1+0, and even 5 on AMD SB/and Intel boxes but in the end it appears if speed matters beyond all else RAID 0 is winner.

I am curious if 5 drives makes things worst or better or even 6 for RAID 0 only configurations. Tom's hardware charts saying above 4 and then only writes improve for RAID 0 but not the ratio of boost to speed per disk in read thru put as in uisng just 4 drives.

The drives are simple comsumer off the shelf Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB (on sale for $75 USD each) but when in RAID 0 can achive quite impressive throughput; anyone still care to see findings?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ToeMass* 
Is this forum still alive in 1Q/ 2010 if so my mechanical drives might help some on the decision point of SSD versus HDD?

This forum is very much alive - but this isn't really the place for your post. Just start a new thread in this section.

But to answer you question simply - you can get very high sequential rates from RAID0 arrays of mechanical disks for cheap, but for many uses they don't approach the real-world usage speeds of an SSD because of their superior access times.


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


This forum is very much alive - but this isn't really the place for your post. Just start a new thread in this section.

But to answer you question simply - you can get very high sequential rates from RAID0 arrays of mechanical disks for cheap, but for many uses they don't approach the real-world usage speeds of an SSD because of their superior access times.


Thanks.

Can I post my WD HDD raid 0 ShortStroke using (47GB) of 157MB/s @ 4.8 ms access times or have others stated that before? I gave up on making this Raptor array any faster since I got the 4x Samgsung drives thinking more even if slow will perform fast...


----------



## Hellfighter

WD5001ALLS










My minimum looks unnaturally low, anything wrong with that?


----------



## Capwn

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Hellfighter*


WD5001ALLS

_~snip~
_
My minimum looks unnaturally low, anything wrong with that?


Not really anything wrong, It was probably just something accessing the drive right then where you see it dip
. .. Here is my result with 3 of those same drives in RAID 0


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Capwn*


Not really anything wrong, It was probably just something accessing the drive right then where you see it dip
. .. Here is my result with 3 of those same drives in RAID 0










The access time is sub-par to compared to a cheap SSD try to get it faster. The read troughput matters nothing to these SSD dudes.


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gabkicks* 
I just got the Western digital 1tb HDD SATAIII ( i am running it SATA II). the drive isnt even formatted, i just slapped it in and ran hd tune.

WD100FAEX










Awesome please post more resluts for 6GB/s drive spec.


----------



## take2lake

Block - 2MB


----------



## felipeanon

attached


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *felipeanon*


attached


I see your awesome score but it felt on deafed ears.

I just bought into SSD RAID 0 with post in the next weeksl
I was sitting close to 500MB/s short stroked HDD and with another at 157MB/s 4.8 MS access time but darn it that's not fast enough!

Thee SSD bunch is a particular group.


----------



## the_beast

he doesn't have an awesome score - he just benchmarked a somewhat useless ramdrive.


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ToeMass*


Thanks.

Can I post my WD HDD raid 0 ShortStroke using (47GB) of 157MB/s @ 4.8 ms access times or have others stated that before? I gave up on making this Raptor array any faster since I got the 4x Samgsung drives thinking more even if slow will perform fast...


Short Stroke RAID0 setup:

Need: At least two HDDs/SSDs e.g. RAID0 scales almost perfect out to about 4 to 5 drives see tomshardware.com for RAID disk charts if you don't trust me. Not sure on SSDs but seen some sick YouTube videos of RAID0 SSDs. The SATA II spec is only going to get you so far before saturating the bus thou I get 500MB/s and 4000MGB/s burst I'm not sure how that translate to real rubber to the road performance. My WEI in windows 7 64-bit is 6.5 or 6.6 because of HDDs using mechanical drives (RAID0x4) but have seen SSDs get higher albiet with less storage.
BIOS: Support for RAID in IDE/or better yet SATA. Ideal would be those costly PCIx controller cards for RAID SATA $400 cost but otherwise just use motherboard supported raid controller if you don't have one then use Windoze RAID software even makes difference. 
Result: Faster performance and seek times but may need to re-install OS/Applications and Data just a warning.

Assuming this is a new build we connect the drives per hardware instructions and power of machine. In bios setup configure drives in this case as SATA RAID. Once post screen comes up the new settings from bios change should allow option to press Ctrl-I or Ctrl-F depending on Intel or AMD systems.

In RAID setup screens e.g. press Ctrl-i or Ctrl-f the options are listed choose create volume. Select RAID0 select all the drives in system (assuming all drives are same spec ideally) and make the size for this first volume 10-20 percent of its normal size e.g. 250GB HHD would be 25GB but in RAID0 it gets multiplied by the number total drives in array so if you have 2 HHDS then choosing *50GB* for the size would work out to be 10 percent of smallest drive. Another example would be having 4 HHDs each one is 1TB so 10 percent of the smallest in this case each drive is equal in size so the size is 100GB but since we select 4 drives it is actaully equating to *400GB* and this number 400GB is what we choose for it's size. We continue to create second volume using the remaining space for our HHDs. Keep in mind 2TB volumes can not be bootable (windows can create GBT disks from those as MBR will only allow 2TB partitions to exist) or benchmarked via HD Tune 2.55 however HD Tach and ATTO will be able to benchmark 2TB or larger volumes.

There are many different mind sets for RAID volumes but if performance is the goal then RAID0 is the best without doubt. RAID 1, 0+1, 1+0, 5 are usually available via on-board controllers but in benchies those are not going to perform on par with straight up RAID0 configs. The option I have is just make two RAID0 volumes one of which is short stroked being 10-20 percent of physical smallest drive installed and the second consuming the excess.

Windows 7 has the option to load additional drivers at install time this allows certain controllers to be installed during install. The controller SATA RAID drivers are provided by your motherboard website it is important to get them and place on USB thumbdrive or floppy prior to installing OS though I found they are not needed for sucess they are needed in order to resolve device driver issues once windows is installed.

The second piece to installation is the runtime or additional software needed to configure the RAID once windows boots. This software is needed to enable the cache and queue settings. For Intel installed controllers it the Intel Matrix RAID software and for AMD its the RAIDxpert software. These applications are something you run once booted in windows to configure the RAID and manage it. I have found enabling the drive cache per volume allows for best benchmarks. The volume cache should be enabled by default and the individual drives caches per volume should also be enabled. Queue enabling has not always been benificial for AMDxpert so test the different permutations and see if it helps.

If you own two drives then RAID0 short stroking the first volume and then creating a second volume will allow two areas for applications/data/pagefiles/tmp files/games to live. After boot up of windows you need to right click computer manage disk systems and bring online the second volume and then format and assign drive letter. For me the second volume is made to be D: and I change the other existing drives to be above that so just change/add the drive lettering as needed. Once the second volume is on-line and formated make it your pagefile disk for C: e.g. no page file on C: and make the second volume D: system managed pagefile. That should help windows run better.

In this configuration install most everything with custom install such that the installation folders become D: instead of C: Windows will consume 20GB of drive space and everything else you install will go onto the new volume D: the larger of the volumes. If you have partition needs then you can further partition both C: at install time and D: after windows boots to meet those wishes.


----------



## ToeMass

Left side is 20% of four Spinpoints RAID0 e.g. 800GB array
Right side is the left over space in RAID10 e.g. 1600GB or 1.6TB

I get better HD Tune 2.55 using RAID5 for left over space but so many folks slam RAID5 I thought RAID10 would be more informative. By better I mean when viewed by HD Tach the results are over 100GB/s faster read throught put about same on access so I claim RAID5 at least in Intel ICH10R mobo needs second thoughts. I consider CPU usage non-issue since running at 4.2GHz and nothing but mutli-threaded apps holds me back!

BTW If I configure these four drives in 10% e.g. 400GB array I gain almost break the 500GB/s mark in read throughtput. I feel that my disk to memory and memory to disk is holding back these drives e.g. not getting higher than maybe 495GB/s read results in HD Tune 2.55

WEI is 6.5 for windows 7 64-bit so any myths about that bench being limited for HDDs is BS. I have scored 6.6 WEI windows 7 64-bit using AMD SB using same drives.

At this point I have reached maxiumum I know to squeeze out of 4 drives in RAID0 my cache settings are all on queuing enabled and timeouts extended to allow better RAID performance for these drive.


----------



## ToeMass

All,

I can at least score in the top 5 just using regular cheapo $80 1TB HDDs and THAT DOES INCLUDE SSDs in the mix?

Please help me under stand 4x$80=$320 equals top 5 HD Tune on forum results SSDs not report in?

My best scores are higher this is just random score for placement e.g. 495MB/s or better is higher score by me not posted. What gives?


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ToeMass*


All,

I can at least score in the top 5 just using regular cheapo $80 1TB HDDs and THAT DOES INCLUDE SSDs in the mix?

Please help me under stand 4x$80=$320 equals top 5 HD Tune on forum results SSDs not report in?

My best scores are higher this is just random score for placement e.g. 495MB/s or better is higher score by me not posted. What gives?


Not sure what your saying here.


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NoGuru* 
Not sure what your saying here.









Im asking to see higher benches.

Of course you are loaded so whatever.

Beat simple cheap 4x RAID HHds config on buildin mobos pretty simple request.


----------



## NoGuru

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ToeMass* 
Im asking to see higher benches.

Of course you are loaded so whatever.

Beat simple cheap 4x RAID HHds config on buildin mobos pretty simple request.

So you want someone with 4 drives in RAID to bench against you.
Well wouldn't they have to be Samsung F3's to be comparable?

Not that simple of a request.


----------



## ToeMass

No no no not against the same thing I would just bump my cpu or chipset or even reduce my stroke or something to beat that









I was really expecting to see other drive combos more specifically SSDs beat that.

WD versus my cheapos versus Hitachi would be cool but include them all like other reviews would do no vedor love here...

I have some WD's and they are awesome no complaints from me just another twist to the benchies...My guess would be get 4x 10K velociraptors at the new SATA spec would blow me out of the water but then the real question from me is kkk...

REAL QUESTION BELOW









How do SSDs fit into the picture if you already own space in terms of speed space e.g. 4x or 6x or more of WDs finest new SATA 3.0 spec Velociraptors spinning at 10K?

Do you still make SSD the boot drive?
Do you need to RAID0 them?
Do you really need SSD if not for the power concerns durability?
Can the seeks time on SSD be felt beyond what the new WDs give? 
etc.


----------



## c00lkatz

I see where you're going with this, and I also see that you completely miss the point of SSD's









To sum it up...YES, the random access times of SSD's FAR FAR FAR outweigh anything a mechanical disk can do.

EDIT: Yes, in terms of HDTune and read/write, my WD6400AAKS slightly beat my SINGLE SSD, however due to the MUCH MUCH lower access times of the SSD, it is MUCH faster than my RAID array. I have installed Vista and W7 to both my RAID-0 and my SSD, and I can tell you, my SSD is a much faster boot drive.


----------



## crashovride02

2x Samsung 500GB F3's (HD502HJ) in RAID0 short stroked to 125GB


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *crashovride02*


2x Samsung 500GB F3's (HD502HJ) in RAID0 short stroked to 125GB


Awesome! Gotta love the boost!


----------



## crashovride02

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ToeMass*


Awesome! Gotta love the boost!


Yes I do! These F3's are fast in RAID 0. I replaced some WD 250GB AAKS drives that I tried short stroking on and these drives killed them!


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *c00lkatz*


I see where you're going with this, and I also see that you completely miss the point of SSD's









To sum it up...YES, the random access times of SSD's FAR FAR FAR outweigh anything a mechanical disk can do.

EDIT: Yes, in terms of HDTune and read/write, my WD6400AAKS slightly beat my SINGLE SSD, however due to the MUCH MUCH lower access times of the SSD, it is MUCH faster than my RAID array. I have installed Vista and W7 to both my RAID-0 and my SSD, and I can tell you, my SSD is a much faster boot drive.


SSDs allow less time spent booting : that is an excellent benchmark start though it might be part of the gains SSD reveals.

Part I: Boot time or speed from after BIOS screens (flips in 2d mode from CRT) till the neat sounds windows makes!


----------



## Diabolical999

2x WD 320GB AAKS drives short-stroked to 160GB


----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *crashovride02*


Yes I do! These F3's are fast in RAID 0. I replaced some WD 250GB AAKS drives that I tried short stroking on and these drives killed them!


I thought about that single platter 500GB and those results are very useful thanks!

Less moving parts with just one spinning and then you made just the outside parts of that spinning disk the business area X2 even better it all works faster awesome.


----------



## Slightly skewed




----------



## ToeMass

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed*












how many SSDs to get that and what they cost?
maybe even drop there names?


----------



## the_beast

if you really want some extreme speeds look in this thread from a while back.

The thing is, that such a system actually doesn't _feel_ much different from using a single good SSD - so is a bit of a waste of money really. Most users will almost certainly get a better user experience if they sink their cash into more cpu/gpu/ram rather than multiple SSDs.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ToeMass*


how many SSDs to get that and what they cost?
maybe even drop there names?


 2 SSD's. Both Kingston SNV425S264GB. But this bench is sequential, so it really doesn't mean a whole lot.


----------



## valamyr_sc

RAID 0 Agility 2 50GB


----------



## buste2

Samsung 500gb F3's Full 1tb Raid 0










Samsung 500gb F3's Short Stroked to 450gb


----------



## CravinR1

Seagate 320 gig 5400.5 (laptop hd)
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...00f5ee0a0aRCRD


----------



## eflyguy

Seagate ST9500420AS Momentus 7200.4 500GB 2.5" SATA laptop drive
49.8 min
101.6 max
80.7 ave
17.2 ms access
157 burst


----------



## undertaxxx

2xWD1001FALS raid0


----------



## cinders

4 x Western Digital WD5002ABYS RE3 500GB 16MB SATA2 3.5" running Intel ICH10R RAID-0, 128kb Stripe.
All drives short-stroked to 50GB Each.

378.1 MB/s min
437.2 MB/s max
419.9 MB/s avg
7.6ms access
2629.7 MB/s burst

I'm very happy with these readings!

The only reason I'm playing about with this is because I found this threat and had to try this setup. I was running an 80Gb Intel X25-M but this setup smokes it, especially in write throughput. For the same price as well!

Cinders.


----------



## Suit Up

Attached.

WD740ADFD-00NLR1 (74 GB Raptor)

Transfer Rate:
Minimum: 50.4 MB/s
Maximum: 83.4 MB/s
Average: 72.3 MB/s

Access Time:
8.1 ms

Burst Rate:
110.9 MB/s

CPU Usage:
-1.0%


----------



## broken pixel

OCZ Vertex 60G x2 RAID 0 128k
-------------
min
357.9
max
422.7
avg
404.9
access time
0.1
burst rate
5398.4
CPU usage
2.9%


----------



## Disturbed117

min Trans Rate: 26.5
Max Trans Rate: 71.5
AVG Trans Rate: 57.8
Access Time: 15.8ms
Burst: 159.4
CPU: 2.5%


----------



## G|F.E.A.D|Killa

Here is my submission


----------



## spinejam




----------



## TheDreadedGMan

OP: link to HD Tune is broken, the new link is: http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe *EDIT:* I see the link is working now.









This is a Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB on a low end G31 board with ICH7, no AHCI support

*EDIT:* Updated numbers after moving the drive to D: duty (upgraded C: to SSD)


----------



## TheDreadedGMan

And here is my RAMDisk... just for laughs


----------



## BradleyW

I want that MS speed!


----------



## hxcnero

2 750GB western digital caviar blacks. RAID 0 short stroked to 300GB total

WD7501AALS

min-162.0 MB/s
max-206.9 MB/s
avg-193.2 MB/s

access time-8.4 ms


----------



## CravinR1

My F3:


----------



## Doomas




----------



## grandmothra

2 WD6401AALS short stroked to 128gb (as shown in windows)


----------



## TheDreadedGMan

here is my Intel X25-M 80GB
















Sure beats my Samsung Spinpoint F1


----------



## Prelude

2x WD740HLFS in Raid 0-writeback cash disabled

Enabled


----------



## hbfs

My 1TB Spinpoint F3.


----------



## Mugenx

*BIOS Setting for SATA:* _ACHI_
*Stripe Size:* _256KB_
*Hard Drives:* _2 x 320GB WD Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT in RAID 0_
*Raid Controller:* _LSI 3ware 9650se-4LPML_
*Short Stroked:* _160GB {25% of the 640GB WD Scorpio Blacks}_
*Other:* _2+ months as a 1st time RAIDer_

2 x 320GB WD Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT in RAID 0 {1st Run}









2 x 320GB WD Scorpio Black WD3200BEKT in RAID 0 {2nd Run}









.... a pair of 2.5" laptop hard drives in RAID 0 in my gaming rig. It just works!
Thanks OCN!


----------



## cinders

I threw in another drive to the RAID-0 array...

NOW - 5 x Western Digital WD5002ABYS RE3 500GB 16MB SATA2 3.5" running Intel ICH10R RAID-0, 128kb Stripe. All drives short-stroked to 50GB Each.










Minimum 464.4 MB/s
Maximum 544.0 MB/s
Average 522.7 MB/S

Access 8.0ms
Burst 1553.2 MB/s
CPU 10.7%


----------



## cinders

And here is a single one of these drives formatted to full capacity.


----------



## culexor

2 1TB 7200.12s in RAID 0. See spreadsheet for detailed specs.


----------



## Rand Al'Thor

1 Samsung HD502HJ


----------



## NoGuru

Just installed OCZ Agility 120G


----------



## Rand Al'Thor

2x Samsung f3 500gb HD502HJ RAID 0


----------



## BradleyW

check sig rig for details.


----------



## Kramy

Just a regular Caviar Black 640GB. All HDTune settings at default.


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BradleyW* 
check sig rig for details.

Score look right for my sig rig's hdd's?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BradleyW*


Score look right for my sig rig's hdd's?


I suspect you are using the wrong controller - you will likely get better performance from the ICH10R.


----------



## BradleyW

And what ports are the ICH10R? Am getting poor fps as well. Good this partly be the reason why, all because the main hdd's with all the stuff on are running in the wrong controller?


----------



## the_beast

I believe the white SATA ports are the Marvell SATA 6Gb/s controller, and the blue ports are the ICH10R ones. Doubtfull this could cause low framerates - to be honest benchmarks are the only way you can tell the controllers apart anyway.


----------



## BradleyW

I have a optical drive in the blue ports. can i still raid up my hdd's without affecting the optical drive? as far my CF set-up. I get better frames with just 1 card.


----------



## ceemuk

3x Seagate .12 500GB, short stroked to 750GB, 128KB stripe, ICH10R latest drivers & Matrix storage manager.

750GB short stroke is nowhere near optimal so I can't help but wonder if that access time is as accurate as it could be, the array is defragged daily by O&O defrag.


----------



## bloodmaster

5x WD500AAKS 500GB, short stroked to 50GB each, 128KB stripe, ICH9R latest drivers & Matrix storage manager.

Why in ATTO results i have better write speeds than read?


----------



## Aznboy1993

Western Digital Caviar Black 640GB [RAID0]


----------



## Zhany

Here is mine


----------



## awaizy

Contributing:
Min 59.1mb/sec
max 91.5
avg 78.4
access time 11.3
burst rate 130.4
WD6401AALS


----------



## pdrider6890

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BradleyW*


I have a optical drive in the blue ports. can i still raid up my hdd's without affecting the optical drive? as far my CF set-up. I get better frames with just 1 card.


Use the onboard Intel controller, you can have the optical drive on the same controller, it will not affect the Raid. Make sure you install the Intel Storage Matrix Console, and enable write back cache on the raid.


----------



## pdrider6890

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bloodmaster*


5x WD500AAKS 500GB, short stroked to 50GB each, 128KB stripe, ICH9R latest drivers & Matrix storage manager.

Why in ATTO results i have better write speeds than read?


Writes are typically faster for all HDD's. SSD's are a different story. What did you do to short stroke? Did you just limit using the Raid controller or did you use the drives Firmware, to modify the actual drive size for short stoked?


----------



## Killmassacre

Heres my Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB(single drive)










And here it is in RAID 0(two drives)


----------



## PapaSmurf

Just got one of the Samsung F4 HD322GJ 320GB SATA2 drives in this morning. Here are a couple of HDTune results. I haven't had any time to do any real work with the drive yet (only got it about 20 minutes ago), but it looks good so far. It looks to be a darn site better than the 4yo 320gig Seagate 7200.10 that it will be replacing as my main OS drive.










And Short Stroked to 100 gig


----------



## CravinR1

:-O Wow impressive speeds, great access short stroked


----------



## Caz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PapaSmurf*


Just got one of the Samsung F4 HD322GJ 320GB SATA2 drives in this morning. Here are a couple of HDTune results. I haven't had any time to do any real work with the drive yet (only got it about 20 minutes ago), but it looks good so far. It looks to be a darn site better than the 4yo 320gig Seagate 7200.10 that it will be replacing as my main OS drive.


If anyone can find the results for 2-4 of these drives in RAID 0 Config, please post them here, I'm looking around.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Caz*


If anyone can find the results for 2-4 of these drives in RAID 0 Config, please post them here, I'm looking around.


http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...8ef3750cf3a29c


----------



## pdrider6890

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cravinr1* 
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...8ef3750cf3a29c

Nice!


----------



## PhaedraCorruption

What am I doing wrong here? I have three 7200.10s in RAID0


----------



## pdrider6890

That's horrible! Was something running in the background while you were running the test? What controller card do you have?


----------



## PhaedraCorruption

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdrider6890* 
That's horrible! Was something running in the background while you were running the test? What controller card do you have?

Nothing at all. I had windows installed on the disks 2 minutes prior.

I have a ICH10R


----------



## PapaSmurf

Which Intel Rapid Storage Manager Driver are you using? I have some stuttering and other issues when I use the latest on my EP45-UD3P which also has the ICH10/R controller. I have much better luck and performance with the 8.9.0.1023 driver.


----------



## CravinR1

What did your single drives get?

My 7200.10 320 gig in raid 0 got 110-132 (110 win 7, 132 xp) and thats only 2 drives

They get about 70 mb/s single mode


----------



## PhaedraCorruption

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


What did your single drives get?

My 7200.10 320 gig in raid 0 got 110-132 (110 win 7, 132 xp) and thats only 2 drives

They get about 70 mb/s single mode


Yeah I get around 80 single.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PhaedraCorruption*


Yeah I get around 80 single.


Write back cache enabled or disabled??


----------



## AdmRose

Hitachi HDP725032GLA


----------



## Riloux

Anyone have some graphs for the new Spinpoint F4s in raid 0?


----------



## PapaSmurf

I haven't seen any posts of the F4's in Raid yet. I only have the one and can say that it really improved the overall performance of my system compared to my previous drives. Not up to an SSD but it is quite snappy. It was well worth the $45 I spent on it.


----------



## mikevanunen

x8 seagate 15k savvio 4 st3500418as 1068 adaptec and raidcore cards xw8200 du al 3.8 xeon 10 gigs ram







[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Riloux

Spinpoint F3 500gb
150 GB partition


----------



## JadedFloridian

I'm going to be upgrading to an Intel rig very soon. It should be interesting to see if there's a difference with RAID 0 performance. I'll post my current results with my Nvidia RAID now, and quote it later when I have my new Intel results.


----------



## pdrider6890

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mikevanunen*


x8 seagate 15k savvio 4 st3500418as 1068 adaptec and raidcore cards xw8200 du al 3.8 xeon 10 gigs ram







[/URL][/IMG]



Man... What the heck are you doing that requires that much HD performance?


----------



## zamdam

Heres mine...


----------



## ASSSETS

RAID0 3x Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS


----------



## The_Punisher

Before: Samsung Spinpoint F3










and Seagate Barracuda 7200.12










After RAID0 and 250GB short-stroke:



















Overall I'm pretty happy with the results. It takes longer to boot, I think because it has to initialize the raid array, but programs seem to load faster so far.


----------



## videoman5




----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *videoman5*












how old are your drives, and what settings are you using? That is terrible performance for a 3-drive array, even on an AMD controller...


----------



## The_Punisher

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_beast* 
how old are your drives, and what settings are you using? That is terrible performance for a 3-drive array, even on an AMD controller...

I was thinking the same thing, but didnt want to sound mean


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The_Punisher* 
I was thinking the same thing, but didnt want to sound mean









not being mean - I want him to know that his system looks to be underperforming, and I'll do my best to help him sort it out...


----------



## videoman5

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_beast* 
how old are your drives, and what settings are you using? That is terrible performance for a 3-drive array, even on an AMD controller...

3x HDP725050GLA360s.

They're kind of an old drive, but not too old. I didn't think there was a problem; Toms has the avg read of one drive at 62.6MB/s.


----------



## pioneerisloud

*2x Samsung F3 1TB's in RAID-0 Short Stroked to 100GB (my C: drive):*









*2x Samsung F3 1TB's in RAID-0 Short Stroked to 640GB (after the 100GB) (my D: drive):*








Please note, my RAID controller only allows for 2 seperate partitions per RAID array, so I'm actually short stroked on the first 100GB, then my 640GB partition is just short partitioned. The remaining amount of space is my downloads and backup drive.

*2x WD Green 2TB's in RAID-1 (full size) (my F: drive, E: drive doesn't matter):*









And I figured it would be pointless to benchmark my 2TB WD Green that I put into an external enclosure for mirroring of the RAID1 array. So I left that drive out.


----------



## wimcle

Old 6x wd640 stripe:


New 4x 90GB Agility2:


better access time and random read, probably not $500 better


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wimcle*


Old 6x wd640 stripe:

New 4x 90GB Agility2:

better access time and random read, probably not $500 better










probably not - but a single drive would have been more then $125 better...


----------



## DOOOLY

I just got this Mushkin SSD Callisto Deluxe 120gb yesterday. I told my self i would not buy one until they go down in price now i am so dame happy with the speed. I got this for 300$ CAD. Here is the HD tune benchmark ,not bad i would say compared to my 250gb Seagate HD.


----------



## GaByLaN_92

Hola! Les dejo mis resultados:
RAID 0 - Samsung F3 Spinpoint 500GB x 2
Slice 75gb , Stripe 64kb


----------



## TwistedMind

Short stroked to 64.2 GB.



















Update: Dropped .1 ms & gained 8.6 MB/s Burst Rate.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Sence i upgraded to my i7 my raid 0 3x 320s really shines.


----------



## AdmRose

New Kingston SSD


----------



## Riou

I used an eSATA connection, not internal SATA connection.

Hitachi HDS721010CLA332, 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB cache hard drive










Now short stroked to 200GB:


----------



## Thingamajig

Two Samsung F3's, 1TB in RAID-0 Config.


----------



## lawrencendlw

Micron RealSSD C300 128GB SATA III SSD (C300-MTFDDAC128MAG (128 GB))

Transfer Rate:
Minimum: 342.1 MB/sec
Maximum:371.5 MB/sec
Average: 356.2 MB/sec

Access Time
0.1ms

Burst Rate: 3602.0 MB/sec

CPU Usage -1.0%

(only doing this post for my proof so I can post from the "Red link")

Oh and I started the folding back up right after the test... I think lol

Looking at the spreadsheet it looks like I have the fastest (or one of the fastest) single drive scores without it being a ramdisk... do I get a gold sticker or something for that lol... maybe a cookie?


----------



## Unknownm

HP G62 220ca stock harddrive


----------



## JimmysXXL

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wimcle* 
Old 6x wd640 stripe:


New 4x 90GB Agility2:


better access time and random read, probably not $500 better









is writeback enabled here ?


----------



## JimmysXXL

2x WD640 Black Raid 0 ICH9R 200Gb Partition








2x Intel X25-V Raid 0 ICH9R


----------



## thiagocosta85

OMG...

I almost hit 400MB !!!!

I have 2 Vertex 2 @ Raid 0 on AMD Southbridge 750


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Im very interested to see the mobile drive results









Anyways:

Western Digital Scorpio Blue (WD5000BEVT-22A0RT0) 2.5" 500GB 7200rpm


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace*


Im very interested to see the mobile drive results









Anyways:

Western Digital Scorpio Blue (WD5000BEVT-22A0RT0) 2.5" 500GB 7200rpm











Posted earlier but here is the drive from my HPG60-230US

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


Seagate 320 gig 5400.5 (laptop hd)
http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.js...00f5ee0a0aRCRD


----------



## runeazn

i think mine owns








RE-4GP 2tb x 2 in raid
WD Enterprise storage


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


Posted earlier but here is the drive from my HPG60-230US


It looked like it was fine, but at half way, it belly flops at the access times. Did you turn of anything that uses the hard drive and did you disconnect from the internet?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *runeazn*


i think mine owns








RE-4GP 2tb x 2 in raid
WD Enterprise storage











Thats broken bro








Try to run it again, cause access time of 0.0 could only be done on a SSD in raid. And 2 TB of drive space?? :O

Unless you got something like this:


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace* 
It looked like it was fine, but at half way, it belly flops at the access times. Did you turn of anything that uses the hard drive and did you disconnect from the internet?]

Just reran. Still on the net and only thing running was windows sidebar and MSSE










OLD FOR Comparisons


----------



## runeazn

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace* 
It looked like it was fine, but at half way, it belly flops at the access times. Did you turn of anything that uses the hard drive and did you disconnect from the internet?

Thats broken bro








Try to run it again, cause access time of 0.0 could only be done on a SSD in raid. And 2 TB of drive space?? :O

Unless you got something like this:


















Doesnt matter how many times it always get close/higher results
I have 4TB of space

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lawrencendlw

You still can't beat the single drive results of a C300 on a SATA III for 4K and Burst lol. I think with some tweaking and prodding that I could make it a bit faster but I don't want to over bench my SSD and make it useless lol.


----------



## rubema

x2 F60 Corsair SSD Raid0


----------



## WhiteDog

*3x Samsung Spinpoint F4's in RAID 0 4k stripe with 50% short stroking:*


----------



## gaming96

I think My HDD wants to be a ssd lol :/ Higher Speeds Dont Bother Me


----------



## stumped

Vertex 2:










Super Talent (Indilinx):


----------



## lawrencendlw

I think that something might be wrong there on both drives. Don't quote me on that though. I just think that it is ridiculous that gaming96's 1TB Hitachi 7200 RPM standard HDD has a higher Burst rate than both of your SSD's and that his has a higher Maximum and is close to you on the averages. So either his test is screwed up or you have a setting wrong with your drives. Can someone else please shed some light on this and either confirm or deny if this is true please?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *stumped*


Vertex 2:

Super Talent (Indilinx):


----------



## BradleyW

F3 500GB Raid 0 Short Stroke 180GB!


----------



## oneskyride

OCZ Vertex 2 (E) 120 gb : (default settings)



opinions ?


----------



## levontraut

wd 1 terabyte green 64 meg cache. 7 months old on usb docking station.









wd 500 gig black 5 months old.


----------



## BradleyW

Are my results good for what i have?


----------



## levontraut

it is about right dude.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BradleyW* 
Are my results good for what i have?

For 2 drives thats smoking


----------



## lawrencendlw

Yeah that is pretty smoking. It almost makes me want to get 4 of These 3 TB Western Digital Caviar Black SATA II and short stroking them to 1TB each. That would be insane performance. But I guess at that cost It would just be more cost effective for me to get 3 more Crucial C300 128 GB SATA III SSD's and This PCI-E X4 Raid controller. Running 4 SATA III SSD's would be just insanity. I might just do it just to see how fast it really could be. I guess for the cost of all of those parts I could just buy one of These or These =D that's just freaking crazy fast but at the cost of a full high end Core i7-930 build I don't know if the second one would be worth it lol. I can think of a few more things that would increase my performance much more than the SSD alone would lol (like a 980x and a couple more GTX 480's).


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:


Originally Posted by *levontraut* 
it is about right dude.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *CravinR1* 
For 2 drives thats smoking


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Heres my frankinstien raid right now 1 seagate 320 1 wd 30 and 1 wd 750 in raid0 the 750 is leaving when i order 2 more 320s.


----------



## pistons50

What about atto if we use ssd?


----------



## dog5566

WHY SO CRAP? LOL

WD1200JS disk 1.

Transfer rate
min 7.6
max 51.2
ave 35.1
access time 17.7
burst rate 95.1
cpu -1?

WD1200BEVT disk 2.

transfer rate
min 29.5
max 54.7
ave 44.8
access time 16
burst rate 109.7
cpu -1?

Why are my disks so slow? im going to be buying new disks this week.


----------



## MR KROGOTH

There's only one Maxtor entry!!!
Wha!!
Im the next one, then.


----------



## lawrencendlw

Lol that goes to show you how many of us really want to run Maxtors lol


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Dog5566, your results seem average, they are not bad per say.

Running 1 hard drive via sata seems to give a max of about 60mb in most results and if the hard drive is not interupted (a spike drop in graph) then the min usually is at 30mb near the end of the drive.

Alot of results here are raid 0 with 2 or more hard drives giving sweet speed.

If you are a gamer and heavy user, you should raid up both your 120gb drives together and you will get some sweet speed


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace* 
Dog5566, your results seem average, they are not bad per say.

Running 1 hard drive via sata seems to give a max of about 60mb in most results and if the hard drive is not interupted (a spike drop in graph) then the min usually is at 30mb near the end of the drive.

Alot of results here are raid 0 with 2 or more hard drives giving sweet speed.

If you are a gamer and heavy user, you should raid up both your 120gb drives together and you will get some sweet speed









Thats not true. My WD 640 gets in the 90's average and my Samsung F3 gets 117 average and 109 average

In my q6600 my raid array gets around 150 mb/s (640 aaks x 2) and my F3 gets 117, so when transferring large amounts of data I can hit 160 mb/s


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CravinR1* 
Thats not true. My WD 640 gets in the 90's average and my Samsung F3 gets 117 average and 109 average

In my q6600 my raid array gets around 150 mb/s (640 aaks x 2) and my F3 gets 117, so when transferring large amounts of data I can hit 160 mb/s

Is your F3 a sata3? oh and could you send me the model no. for the WD please?









I always thought that i should be getting more speed with sata2, but i tested out a samsung hd160, hd 320, WD blue 500, WD black 320 and the WD black was better, but only because it did not drop (dip) on the graph as quick as the others. But they generally got 60 top end, 40 av, 30 min.

Also as note, tested these HDD on 2 different PCs which are totally different hardware wise but both win7 64bit


----------



## CravinR1

All my disks are in the spreadsheet on page 1

Run on my P965 + ICH8R old P5b Deluxe MB (Don't own a Sata 3 mb) Windows 7 x64

WD 640 gig AAKS (its the blue's model but when bought there was no blues and the AAKS was the fastest, I don't have a SS of the raid but I'll get one and post)










Samsung F3 on the same MB









I'll run HDTune on my Gigabyte P35-S3G with the 500 gig WD AAKS and the new F3 1TB (though this one is slower, may be the mb)


----------



## CravinR1

Here just run

WD 500 Gig AAKS is OS drive (XP Pro SP3)
F3 is storage


----------



## XAslanX




----------



## DeepEmbrace

Damn, thats pretty sweet. Is it mostly the WD Blacks and F3s that hit this performance?

I just wander because the WD black i have is the best, but it was made quite afew years ago. The others i have are WD Blue and Samsung Spinpoint (But not in the F series).

I checked online and the F3's have become alot more cheaper in the UK, so i may buy them now


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace*


Damn, thats pretty sweet. Is it mostly the WD Blacks and F3s that hit this performance?

I just wander because the WD black i have is the best, but it was made quite afew years ago. The others i have are WD Blue and Samsung Spinpoint (But not in the F series).

I checked online and the F3's have become alot more cheaper in the UK, so i may buy them now










My personal experience:

Samsung F3 1TB averages 110-120 mb/s
WD 640 gig AAKS averages 80-upper 90's mb/s
WD 500 gig AAKS averages 60-70 mb/s
Seagate 7200.10 320 averages 60-70 mb/s

The AAKS (blues) are as fast or faster than the AALS (blacks), the 640 gig WD are much faster than the 500 gigs

I hear:
Samsung F3 500 gig = 1TB in performance
WD 500 gig single platter = F3 or 640 (though I dont think u can tell which one you get)


----------



## poroboszcz

2x Seagate 7200.12 500 GB vs 2 x WD Caviar Black 640 GB AALS in RAID 0

Seagate (dying):










WD (brand new):


----------



## blackbuilder




----------



## broken pixel

OCZ VERTEX 60G FW 1.6
x3 RAID 0 128K
Intel ICH10R










Not to shabby!


----------



## soundx98

2x WD6400AAKS (blue) RAID 0 short stroked to 200GB


----------



## lawrencendlw

Hey maybe you should put in the OP what we should have HDtune settings set to so that everyone has the same settings and all results are equal. If you change the settings you get grossly different results. For example My original test for my C300 had some really AWESOME results but if I had set it to 512 bytes block size then i get these results:


----------



## BradleyW

I think the F3's are rubbish unless you raid them up on a great motherbaord and short stroke them by a huge amount. Once all that's done, they become extremely powerful.


----------



## lawrencendlw

So how exactly do you short stroke a HDD? It's basically just going into disk manager and partitioning the disk to between 10%-25% its total size so that it reads the outside area of the platters right? Do you have to partition the rest of the disk too or can you leave that space unallocated? I tried to do this with a Seagate 500GB HDD that I had laying around and It's only maybe a year old and I didn't see better results with it done that with it at 100% capacity. I thought that I was doing it wrong but I can't find anywhere how to actually short stroke a used disk. They all say to do it while initializing the disk but if it's a used disk then you can't re-initialize it lol.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lawrencendlw*


So how exactly do you short stroke a HDD? It's basically just going into disk manager and partitioning the disk to between 10%-25% its total size so that it reads the outside area of the platters right? Do you have to partition the rest of the disk too or can you leave that space unallocated? I tried to do this with a Seagate 500GB HDD that I had laying around and It's only maybe a year old and I didn't see better results with it done that with it at 100% capacity. I thought that I was doing it wrong but I can't find anywhere how to actually short stroke a used disk. They all say to do it while initializing the disk but if it's a used disk then you can't re-initialize it lol.


You are basically correct. Run a HDTune (or other benchmark) on the complete hard drive and see at what point the throughput starts to drop off. Now partition the hard drive to a single partition that is that size and do NOT partition the rest of the drive. That will provide you with the maximum performance that specific drive is capable of. Depending on the overall size of the drive that will be somewhere around 50 to 120gigs or so. Since that is all one needs for an OS drive it works out quite well.

The problem comes in if you try to utilize the rest of the space for anything besides storage for files that you rarely access (as in maybe once a month or less). If you try to use the rest of the space on a regular basis you make the drive work harder and cause stuttering, slowdowns, etc. That's why 320gig drives are a good option as they are cheap and the first 60 to 100gigs tend to fall into that optimal performance range.


----------



## lawrencendlw

I don't use the drive at all. I was just messing with it to try and see the difference but I guess I can toss my less used game on that drive and free up that space on my SSD. Won't that also make the SSD a little more snappy if it doesn't have so much on it? I know it's not platters like in HDD's but I thought I heard someone say something like that before that less on a SSD will make it a little faster.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lawrencendlw*


I don't use the drive at all. I was just messing with it to try and see the difference but I guess I can toss my less used game on that drive and free up that space on my SSD. Won't that also make the SSD a little more snappy if it doesn't have so much on it? I know it's not platters like in HDD's but I thought I heard someone say something like that before that less on a SSD will make it a little faster.


For the most part the only time short stroking is worth the time and trouble is as an OS drive. You might see some benefit by loading some of your lesser used games from it, but for the most part it won't do enough for you to notice the difference.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BradleyW* 
I think the F3's are rubbish unless you raid them up on a great motherbaord and short stroke them by a huge amount. Once all that's done, they become extremely powerful.

OOHHH rubbish (Fanboi say what)

Show me a un raided, un short stroked ........ well never mind your post voided any valid post you may have made here.

What? Show me 1 TB or Less HD 7200 RPM or < thats faster


----------



## lawrencendlw

I'm not a fanboi of anything because I think that it's stupid to limit yourself to one brand or another because you like them. I think that if an off brand makes the best on the market at that time then that's what you should buy. With that said, I think that the WD Caviar Black's perform that well or even better at stock but I can't test that under your parameters because I have a 1.5 TB WD Caviar Black.


----------



## DeepEmbrace

I agree. Since they will compete for the title of having the best gear. But in terms of not "company" but rather their specific model, do they not have specific ones for performance?

So i know that the F3's in the UK for a while were slightly more expensive. But the example im gonna use is the Raptors. They are like 10k rpm, have "Heat Sinks" (I was so shocked when i saw them for the first time







) and have slightly lower seek times (Although afew ms is abit subjective, would not make much of a difference to many).

Now, would it be ok to assume that if i was to choose a raptor, i would always get these benefits?


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lawrencendlw*


I'm not a fanboi of anything because I think that it's stupid to limit yourself to one brand or another because you like them. I think that if an off brand makes the best on the market at that time then that's what you should buy. With that said, I think that the WD Caviar Black's perform that well or even better at stock but I can't test that under your parameters because I have a 1.5 TB WD Caviar Black.


lets see your 1.5

Though any 1.5-2 gig should best a 1 gig


----------



## BradleyW

All am saying is, ive found the F3 to be rubbish on it's own. It rans far better in raid with another and short stroked. All am saying! And it's true.

Edit: I never called the 1TB version of the F3 btw! I am talking about my own 500GB's and my experience with using them as a single drive compared to raid 0 short stroked. No comparison between the two. My current arrey is far better than running them in AHCI.


----------



## lawrencendlw

I will test and put it up after I move my itunes file and delete it becuase it's taking up more than 1/3 of my 1.5 TB HDD lol.

Edit: Here is my current results from my 1.5 TB Caviar Black that is 66% full.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


lets see your 1.5

Though any 1.5-2 gig should best a 1 gig


----------



## AdmRose

See link


----------



## PapaSmurf

Nvm


----------



## IfYkv5762

Here are my results, thought it seems the app has probs with multi-core CPUs(quad and above) and shows negative CPU usage.


----------



## ErdincIntel

2x Samsung F4 Spinpoints (HD322GJ) in Raid 0 (ICH10R)
Also OS (Win 7) on them. Here are HDTune2.55 results:


----------



## zer0prime

5 Spinpoint F3's in RAID 5 on LSI 9240-8i card:









2 Spinpoint F3's in RAID 0 on Marvell 9128:









Intel X-25V SSD on Intel ICH10R:


----------



## tjbridge

Western Digital 500GB (WD5000AAKS)


----------



## Allenssmart

Guys is there something wrong?


----------



## CravinR1

Probably just a antivirus or some background program. Thats ok


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Those results are good. Dont worry about the drops. Like CravinR1 says, its just a background task doing something with the HDD for a sec









And hopefully my Samsung F3 comes in tomorrow







And i can finally get better results than 60mb/s maximum


----------



## Guerrilladawg

HDtune of my new 3.5" Vertex2 120GB SSD, very happy about it!


----------



## rpsgc

My 2.5 year old Caviar Blue


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *rpsgc*


My 2.5 year old Caviar Blue










Not bad at all for an older drive. That puppy has held up well.


----------



## Blindsay

are are my 2 32GB X25-E's in RAID0


----------



## BradleyW

that's great latency for a 2-3year old drive.


----------



## redalert

Just got my Samsung F4 today


----------



## SadSoul

Heres my New F3 1TB RAID 0.


----------



## redalert

Here is my WD 1.5 TB Green WD15EARS


----------



## redalert

Here is my Samsung F2 1.5TB HD154UI now I have 5TB of storage for my sig rig. I should be good for awhile


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *redalert*


Here is my Samsung F2 1.5TB HD154UI now I have 5TB of storage for my sig rig. I should be good for awhile


That's what I thought when I had that much. My sig rig is up to 8TB now and may have to go up soon.


----------



## AlessioGTX

Hi all, are WD RE4 250GB and 1TB 64MB fast HD? Now I have a Samsung F4 320Gb and I'm very











Today I ordered WD's (250GB and 1TB RE4 64MB)...I done the best choise?

Thx in advance


----------



## CravinR1

F4 320 is alot faster than the other 500 gigs


----------



## AlessioGTX

I try to bench with max Accurate...here the result:



It's faster than WD RE4 250GB?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


Now I have a Samsung F4 320Gb and I'm very










What are you expecting?


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


I try to bench with max Accurate...here the result:



It's faster than WD RE4 250GB?


Lol, why are you unhappy? These results are superb









Clean up your junk files and defragment


----------



## AlessioGTX

I formatted yesterday...I think no need a defragment...I want transfer files very fast from my internal hd to external storage hd...I ordered WD RE4 1TB 64MB is ok?


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


I formatted yesterday...I think no need a defragment...I want transfer files very fast from my internal hd to external storage hd...I ordered WD RE4 1TB 64MB is ok?


What type of connection are you using for your external Hard drive?

USB for me i see max speed 30mb/s. So, it does not hit even the minimum speed of a Hard drive.

Stats of the WD RE4 1TB 64MB seem good, but i will leave verdict to another user who has one


----------



## AlessioGTX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace*


What type of connection are you using for your external Hard drive?

USB for me i see max speed 30mb/s. So, it does not hit even the minimum speed of a Hard drive.

Stats of the WD RE4 1TB 64MB seem good, but i will leave verdict to another user who has one
 









I bought a case for 1TB hd with e-sata connection...may I transfer at 70MB/s min?


----------



## pvp309rcp

HDTune isn't showing the correct amount of space for the larger RAID setups







. Anyway...here are my results for those interested...too bad a majority of people don't use Seagate drives anymore.

2x Velociraptor 600GB (RAID-0)


4x Barracuda 7200.12 1TB (RAID-0)


4x Barracuda XT 7200.12 2TB (RAID-5)


----------



## DeepEmbrace

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


I bought a case for 1TB hd with e-sata connection...may I transfer at 70MB/s min?


Yep, eSATA should go as fast as if its plugged into SATA port. So about 150mb/s - 300mb/s

On my laptop i could get around 60-80mb/s but i think its a limit on my esata hardware.

I wish they released USB3 quicker cause eSATA is a waste of technology









Not only can USB3 go to like 500mb/s, it can do this speed both ways at the same time. eSATA will do that 150/300mb/s only 1 way


----------



## AlessioGTX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DeepEmbrace*


Yep, eSATA should go as fast as if its plugged into SATA port. So about 150mb/s - 300mb/s

On my laptop i could get around 60-80mb/s but i think its a limit on my esata hardware.

I wish they released USB3 quicker cause eSATA is a waste of technology









Not only can USB3 go to like 500mb/s, it can do this speed both ways at the same time. eSATA will do that 150/300mb/s only 1 way










e-sata only 1 way? From pc to external hd or the invers?
How much fast will I trasfer from my Samsung to external WD RE4 1TB with e-sata? Minimum speed 70-80MB/s?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


e-sata only 1 way? From pc to external hd or the invers?
How much fast will I trasfer from my Samsung to external WD RE4 1TB with e-sata? Minimum speed 70-80MB/s?


eSATA (and SATA) can only transfer data in one direction at once, but they can do that transfer in either direction in turn.

USB 3.0 can transfer data in both directions at the same time, but for storage devices this actually isn't any advantage (as they are all native SATA devices anyway, and therefore even over USB 3.0 they can still only transfer data in 1 direction at once.

In other words, don't worry about it. eSATA is identical to SATA as far as makes a difference, and is (and always will be) superior to USB for storage applications.


----------



## AlessioGTX

The HDs I chose are the fastest (except raid0) for trasfer each-others files?

(Samsung F4 HD322GJ and WD RE4 1TB)


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


The HDs I chose are the fastest (except raid0) for trasfer each-others files?

(Samsung F4 HD322GJ and WD RE4 1TB)


I believe the current RE4s are still using 500GB platters - so the F4 (with its 667GB platters) will be faster for sequential transfers.


----------



## Farih

2x intel 80GB ssd's in raid-o


----------



## AlessioGTX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


I believe the current RE4s are still using 500GB platters - so the F4 (with its 667GB platters) will be faster for sequential transfers.


F4 is for S.O. and RE4 for Storage....is a different thing


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AlessioGTX*


F4 is for S.O. and RE4 for Storage....is a different thing


I think maybe you should start a new thread and ask a proper question - I'm not sure what it is you want to know...


----------



## [email protected]

1x OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SF-1200
ICH10R RST 10.0.0.1046


----------



## broken pixel

RAID 0
3x OCZ Vertex 60G ICH10R


----------



## redalert

I bought another drive this time a Hitachi Deskstar HDS721010CLA332 1TB it was only $50 from Microcenter and I figured what the hell.


----------



## T-bone Steak




----------



## T-bone Steak




----------



## Gabe63

My Western Digital 500GB 7200RPM blue. Once I figure out how to clone it I will test a few more.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Download the free Acronis True Image Special Edition from the Western Digital Support Site.


----------



## Gabe63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PapaSmurf;11748435*
> Download the free Acronis True Image Special Edition from the Western Digital Support Site.


I just did! My first clone was so easy. WD Black 1tb, not much faster than the 500GB Blue


----------



## Gabe63

WD 500GB Black drive


----------



## Gabe63

500 GB Black drive number 2. I am disapointed the Blue drive is so much faster


----------



## PapaSmurf

How much difference is there in the age of the Blue and the Black? If the Black is older that could account for it.


----------



## Gabe63

I bought them both within weeks of eachother and almost never use the black (500GB) drives but use the blue (500GB) drive every day.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Doesn't matter when you purchased them. What is the actual production date?


----------



## iPodder

Is this normal for two f3s in raid 0? Keep in mind, I'm running my os on my wd green atm, not the f3s.
EDIT: I'm able to get ~350mb/s write on the file benchmark, but only 200mb/s read.


----------



## thehybridkiwi

*WD5000AAKS*









*WD6402AAEX (SATA II port)*









*WD6402AAEX (SATA III port)*









*Note the difference in burst speed when the WD6402AAEX drive is connected to the SATA II port versus the SATA III port.

It seems the Caviar Blue outperforms the Caviar Black in average transfer rate - kind of confused there :\ Does anyone know why?


----------



## jdcrispe95

500GB ST3500820AS (Seagate rubbish)
The massive drop towards the start is my subwoofers fault.


----------



## SUPER PISSED

WD1002FAEX 1000GB


----------



## skypine27

2 x Corsair P128 SSDs in Raid 0 (disregard the note "trim enabled". It is not. Intel still does not support TRIM in raid setups...)










1 x WD 300 GB Velociraptor:










3 x WD 2TB "Green" Drives in Raid 0: (had to use HD Tune Pro as HD Tune 2.55 free would not accurately recognize this particular Raid)


----------



## Arkonos

1* Western Digital Scorpio Black 500GB WD5000BEKT


----------



## Anton338

Cool :]

Posting Mine.


----------



## SUPER PISSED

If someone's bored feel free to put mine in. I dun feel like it.


----------



## calebkan

hı guys..

i am tyring to do raıd0 with 4xsamsung f3 but it doesnt work ...

i did but my performance stuck 300mb...sata 3 already enable on bios..and i tryed every driver and many times setup to win7...but still same,

i am getting 250mb avarage results on hdtune with 4 harddisks...

whats the problem?

i tryed 2 different maınboards and results same..and harddısks are new..

so,i didnt do raıd0 with 4 hdd on amd systems!!!

anybody have idea?

its not stripe size problem..

please look at my link,

http://www.overclock.net/amd-general/908809-samsung-spinpoint-f3-hd502hj-500gb-4x.html


----------



## Atomfix

OCZ 60GB Vertex 2E


----------



## ASSEMbler

2x HD103SJ in 0 on P67 lightspeed (2x3gb/s wish I had two 6gb/s)


----------



## Mechrock




----------



## trimak

Looks like mine does pretty well??


----------



## CravinR1

I want a SSD


----------



## IaVoR

Here are mine
http://img62.imageshack.us/i/ssdq.png/
http://img517.imageshack.us/i/11031146.png/
http://img203.imageshack.us/i/seatd.png/

for some reason img linking never works for me...


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *IaVoR*


Here are mine

























for some reason img linking never works for me...


your site must disable linking


----------



## djsi38t

You could try just posting the pics as attachments.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IaVoR;12221987*
> Here are mine
> http://img62.imageshack.us/i/ssdq.png/
> http://img517.imageshack.us/i/11031146.png/
> http://img203.imageshack.us/i/seatd.png/
> 
> for some reason img linking never works for me...


You just have to use the right tags and the correct URL to the image instead of the page it's on. But it's normally a LOT easier to just use the advanced editor and use the Attach feature (the paperclip) to upload the images directly to OCN's servers. That also has the added benefit of them loading a heck of a lot faster than from any of the third party image hosting sites.


----------



## Blue Destroyer

here are my results


----------



## idkfa1

OCZ ONYX 32g ssd









Wow much faster then advertised, can't really complain about that.

Seagate ST9320421AS 320g








Yup rather poopy =\


----------



## LuckySe7ens

That looks pretty decent i guess









OS is on the first 100GB's that brings the access time down and the minimum Xfer up i suppose. Seems fairly speedy, but i dont reboot much or really game so i dunno how much of a difference it makes other then the numbers are far higher then my other single old drive


----------



## stolikat

Here is mine..


----------



## Gaurav Bhattacharjee

mine.

*Benchmark*









*Health (there is one unstable sector....what to do???)*









*Health (UDMA CRC Error too...







...)*









*Error Scan (showing the damaged sector)*









*Random Access*









*Extra Tests*









*AAM*









what to do with this disk? can't RMA because it was a part of a pre-built system.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Nothing that you can do about the CRC error message. It's a count of what has happened so even if the problem is fixed it will always show up like that. Normally it's just a bad SATA Data Cable or loose connection and nothing to worry about.

The Pending Sector Count will probably be fixed by running chkdsk /r from an elevated command prompt (re: run as administrator).


----------



## Gaurav Bhattacharjee

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PapaSmurf*


Nothing that you can do about the CRC error message. It's a count of what has happened so even if the problem is fixed it will always show up like that. Normally it's just a bad SATA Data Cable or loose connection and nothing to worry about.

The Pending Sector Count will probably be fixed by running chkdsk /r from an elevated command prompt (re: run as administrator).


thnx for reply.









i have tune up utilities which does all the work including disk check (at boot also), defrag and other stuff. not fixed.









the thing is i had the same HDD before this which crashed within 4 months. then they replaced the whole cabinet with another duplicate one and once more the same errors. i didn't think WD HDD would be problematic. or maybe just my luck.









i am buying new rig as you can see from my sig. hope it fixes this. prolly also gonna get a new HDD. :|


----------



## PapaSmurf

Forget junk like TuneUp Utilities. Use windows *chkdsk /r* from an elevated command prompt. That will do more for you than running any of that third party crap does as all of them just use the regular chkdsk to do their work. Running it with the /r switch from an elevated command prompt is the best way to fix it without resorting to a complete wipe of the drive, performing a zero fill, then a complete format of the drive or spending $60 or more for SpinRite, the only third party disk utility that actually runs on it's own and actually does what it's supposed to.


----------



## LuckySe7ens

Quote:



Originally Posted by *stolikat*


Here is mine..












Quote:



Originally Posted by *Gaurav Bhattacharjee*


mine.

*Benchmark*









what to do with this disk? can't RMA because it was a part of a pre-built system.


your both using the wrong HD Tune Version.







Get 2.55 from the first post.


----------



## boostinsteve

Here is mine. 2 WD Cav Black 750GB in Raid 0


----------



## Lefty67

Just got this new WD Black 1 TB

How is this bench?


----------



## barrpet

Crucial C300 SATAIII


WD 1TB Caviar Black SATAIII


----------



## pLuhhmm




----------



## mm67

2 Seagate ST31000340AS disks in Raid0


----------



## Cee

Two samsung F4's (320GB, 7200RPM model) in raid 0.


----------



## tictoc

New Raid-0 2 iTB WD Caviar Black 7200 SattaIII


----------



## Diber

I've always wondered the physical number difference between a "normal" (platter) drive, standard SSD, and a PCI-E SSD. I've got a RevoDrive x2, and the computer I've built for my dad has an older RevoDrive (1st gen). When I get home, I'll try out HDTune on them, and see what the results turn out to be.

[EDIT]
Very interesting, so my RevoDrive has some very sub-par results. Now I've got to figure out why! It seemed to run better on my old ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 board, maybe this weekend I'll look at switching back to that and running HD Tune again. Needless to say, the results are slightly over _half_ (and in some cases a lot less) of what the supposed speeds are.

Results:


----------



## ski-bum

(2) Western Digital RE4 (WD5003ABYX) 500GB, Shortstroked = 500GB


----------



## CravinR1

Why does everyone short stroke for the tests. Just run it how its actually setup


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1;12704464*
> Why does everyone short stroke for the tests. Just run it how its actually setup


Because if it's a 1TB array with a 500GB partition on it, you _need_ to select 500GB Short Stroke in HDTune to bench it the way it's set up...


----------



## AIpha

Western Digital Caviar Black 640gb + 500gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12


----------



## ski-bum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the_beast;12704548*
> Because if it's a 1TB array with a 500GB partition on it, you _need_ to select 500GB Short Stroke in HDTune to bench it the way it's set up...


Right On!


----------



## joman2055

im pretty sure a SSD is going to be my next upgrade.


----------



## downy462

Western Digital Caviar Black WD1501FASS 1.5tB results.

I expected more from this disk.


----------



## downy462

Seagate Barracuda ST3300620AS 300gB.


----------



## sgilmore62

3x100Gb Vertex LE's + 2x120Gb Vertex2's RAID 0 64k stripe on ICH10R


----------



## Nilareon

^ wow...

intense hdd's right there lol


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sgilmore62*


3x100Gb Vertex LE's + 2x120Gb Vertex2's RAID 0 64k stripe on ICH10R
...


If you took out 2 of those drives you'd have faster speeds - the extra overhead from 4+ drives chokes the ICH10R.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *the_beast*


If you took out 2 of those drives you'd have faster speeds - the extra overhead from 4+ drives chokes the ICH10R.


You have got to be kidding. No single drive would be faster than that. If you think it would provide some proof.


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PapaSmurf*


You have got to be kidding. No single drive would be faster than that. If you think it would provide some proof.


Read his post again. Then read mine again. Then think a little. Maybe read the array capacity listed by HDTune, then think a little more.

He has *5* drives. I said take *2* out. How many does that leave him?


----------



## lawrencendlw

Gee silly, everybody knows if you have 5 and you take away 2 that you have 18. Gosh, who learned you to count.... lol sorry I couldn't resist.

Sent from my HTC EVO 4G using Tapatalk!


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lawrencendlw;12822182*
> Gee silly, everybody knows if you have 5 and you take away 2 that you have 18. Gosh, who learned you to count.... lol sorry I couldn't resist.












When you RMA'd your wife did you get a brand new model or an old reconditioned one back?


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the_beast;12824903*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you RMA'd your wife did you get a brand new model or an old reconditioned one back?


ouch







the ssd's are looking pretty good. I need to get me some of those.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the_beast;12822156*
> Read his post again. Then read mine again. Then think a little. Maybe read the array capacity listed by HDTune, then think a little more.
> 
> He has *5* drives. I said take *2* out. How many does that leave him?


Sorry, I made a mistake. I saw the 3 drives and didn't bother to add the other 2. But it's possible that the person was more interested in having 500gigs in one partition.


----------



## cr1

2 Velociraptors

128k stripe, might have benched better at 64k


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *cr1*


2 Velociraptors

128k stripe, might have benched better at 64k


Sequential bench would have been worse.

Install the latest drivers and turn on write-back caching for the array.


----------



## cr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the_beast;12913570*
> Sequential bench would have been worse.
> 
> Install the latest drivers and turn on write-back caching for the array.


Good idea-


----------



## MrF430

2 x 1tb Samsung Spinpoint F3

128k stripe

Attachment 202651


----------



## Carlitos714

2x WD Blacks AALS 640 GB short stroked to 320 gb 
1st time putting any drives in RAID 0


----------



## error10

I need a faster hard drive now. This 1TB is getting a bit long in the tooth. Strange, I never thought I'd say something like that.










P.S. That's Linux...and it's built-in.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Just out of curiosity, how do you access that Disk Benchmark from Linux and is it included in all major distros?


----------



## error10

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PapaSmurf*


Just out of curiosity, how do you access that Disk Benchmark from Linux and is it included in all major distros?


It's in Disk Utility, and yes, all major distros include it.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Good to know. Thanks.


----------



## CravinR1

WD5000BEVT 500 gig Blue 2.5" SATA Laptop HD (on P35-S3G ICH9 controller for testing)


----------



## moonmanas

C300


----------



## xandypx

This is just plain sick:










2 x Corsair CSSD-P3128GB2 in RAID0 64kB stripe

Minimum: 788.2
Maximum: 873.5
Average: 845.2
Access time 0.2
Burst rate 1455.5
CPU usage:


----------



## Xealot

^ That is crazy!









I just picked up a Spinpoint F3 in the Newegg sale to give myself a little more breathing room until I build a new rig later this year. I was surprised at how much faster it is than my old WD Caviar Black. If only I had discovered this thread earlier! I think I'll move my Steam folder over to the F3.

WD Caviar Black 1TB from 2008:










New Samsung Spinpoint F3:


----------



## sniper_13

Corsair F80 SSD










1x WD 640gb Caviar black , 1x WD 1.5tb Caviar black










Do my SSD benchmarks look ok? im kind of concerned with all those big spikes.


----------



## xandypx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sniper_13;13393472*
> Corsair F80 SSD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do my SSD benchmarks look ok? im kind of concerned with all those big spikes.


Looks like it is due for a secure erase.

You can get the utilities you need right from Corsair's website.

Download the Parted Magic .iso, and burn it to a disk. If it is your OS, create an image of the SSD drive onto either of your two spinners, (not byte for byte, or you will copy the errors). If it is not your OS, just back it up. Then boot to the Parted Magic disk, and perform a secure erase on the SSD.

Once done, image the drive with the backup image you made. The drive should be good as new.


----------



## sniper_13

I just bought the thing like a couple days ago, of course i did a few reinstall with windows 7 but it shouldn't be that bad. And for some reason i can't get parted magic to work i always get a black screen.

Another note is: i made a back up with Acronis True imager for my partition, is that enough to recover everything?


----------



## sniper_13

Even after a secure erase i still get huge spikes. Should i be doing this in safe mode instead?


----------



## moonmanas

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sniper_13*


I just bought the thing like a couple days ago, of course i did a few reinstall with windows 7 but it shouldn't be that bad. And for some reason i can't get parted magic to work i always get a black screen.

Another note is: i made a back up with Acronis True imager for my partition, is that enough to recover everything?


To avoid the black screen in Parted Magic dont let it go to default boot. Scroll down to OPTION 4 and hit that as the timer counts down to default boot


----------



## sniper_13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonmanas;13402987*
> To avoid the black screen in Parted Magic dont let it go to default boot. Scroll down to OPTION 4 and hit that as the timer counts down to default boot


i try and same thing happens, im starting to think that parted magic does not reckognize my GPU hence the blinking light on the screen.


----------



## PapaSmurf

Do you have an nVidia card you can throw in long enough to run it? I've had a lot better luck with nVidia cards running anything Linux based.

Also, make sure you don't have anything attached via HDMI. That has caused problems for me running it.


----------



## Outcasst

2 x Vertex 3's. 120GB


----------



## moonmanas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sniper_13;13407979*
> i try and same thing happens, im starting to think that parted magic does not reckognize my GPU hence the blinking light on the screen.


Try using Diskpart method 8 here

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927520


----------



## moonmanas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Outcasst;13408188*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 x Vertex 3's. 120GB


WOW


----------



## xandypx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Outcasst;13408188*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 x Vertex 3's. 120GB


Show off!


----------



## tasospaok123

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Hard Drive from my Netbook, under W7.


----------



## StormXLR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Outcasst;13408188*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 x Vertex 3's. 120GB


:O How!!!!


----------



## Simple_echo

Is it normal to have huge sudden drops like this? Looking at other SpinPoint F3 benchmarks I can't seem to find anything like this.

From when I first got the drive, and nothing was on it. It's not even mounted in the case yet, hence the 25c.









A few days later with everything fully installed, and mounted.


----------



## sniper_13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Outcasst;13408188*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 x Vertex 3's. 120GB


So jealous right now









Thanks for the suggestions PapaSmurf and Moonmanas ill look into for now i just used my laptop and placed the SSD in there where parted magic seemed to have booted up fine and did a secure install. I still get the spikes but the guys over at Corsair say its normal and ATTO gives more accurate readings for Corsair SSD's


----------



## WIGILOCO

WHAT is wrong with mine? Samsung F1 1TB, 100% healthy, no errors at all.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WIGILOCO;13463044*
> WHAT is wrong with mine? Samsung F1 1TB, 100% healthy, no errors at all.


Those dips are common on OS drives, most likely a background program/virus detector accessing the disk during the benchmark


----------



## Simple_echo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


Those dips are common on OS drives, most likely a background program/virus detector accessing the disk during the benchmark


That actually makes sense. What would be cause something like that before an OS is installed on a drive though?


----------



## Bobicon

Heres my HD X2 WD5000AAKS in Raid0 .


----------



## xandypx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WIGILOCO;13463044*
> WHAT is wrong with mine? Samsung F1 1TB, 100% healthy, no errors at all.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simple_echo;13470787*
> That actually makes sense. What would be cause something like that before an OS is installed on a drive though?


can't tell you why the dip without an OS, but your access time seems a little high for an F1. I would suspect that it should have been around 15ms, although I am unsure if that may just be the difference between an Intel controller and an AMD. Controller use in the SB by another drive possibly? Just a guess.


----------



## Antsu

RAID0 F3 1TB


----------



## broken pixel

http://www.overclock.net/13530164-post2564.html


----------



## JiminyBillyBob

Just got myself a SSD, a used 60gb Mushkin Callisto Deluxe.
The first thing I did was connecting it to a sata port and running HDTune, not excited about the results, but I'm pretty sure I've yet to set something up right..
Mushkin Callisto Deluxe









WD6401AALS(with a year+ old windows)









I'm hoping I'll get better results from the SSD once I've set it up properly and installed windows on it? Or am I getting my hopes up to high?


----------



## broken pixel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JiminyBillyBob;13887306*
> Just got myself a SSD, a used 60gb Mushkin Callisto Deluxe.
> The first thing I did was connecting it to a sata port and running HDTune, not excited about the results, but I'm pretty sure I've yet to set something up right..
> Mushkin Callisto Deluxe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WD6401AALS(with a year+ old windows)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping I'll get better results from the SSD once I've set it up properly and installed windows on it? Or am I getting my hopes up to high?


What chipset you on? Seek out SSD tweaks follow the guides. Make sure you have the most up to date firmware for your drive. Set AHCI in BIOS and re-bench.


----------



## broken pixel

OldSchool


----------



## broken pixel

OldSchool


----------



## JiminyBillyBob

Quote:



Originally Posted by *broken pixel*


What chipset you on? Seek out SSD tweaks follow the guides. Make sure you have the most up to date firmware for your drive. Set AHCI in BIOS and re-bench.


I switched it to the Intel chipset, was on the Jmicron earlier and I've set it to AHCI.










I've installed win7 on it now and it feels ALOT quicker than my wdblack, but it still gives me 5.9 in WEI and these jumps in HDTune don't look normal to me..
This is my first time with an SSD, am I maybe just expecting to much?


----------



## Rhylian

not too bad for cheap drives? 2x Hitachi 1Tb in Raid0


----------



## munaim1

3x 500gb F3 in RAID 0 64 stripe size


----------



## exnihilo

64k

(The HDD was identical in 64k and 128k. Not close, but 100% the same, is that normal?)

cg


----------



## deviot

here is my score
2x ocz solid3 60gbx each running in raid 0


----------



## broken pixel

Add one more : )


----------



## Turbobutts

Budget system drive incoming ...


----------



## Turbobutts

Excuse the doublepost. Delete please?


----------



## Gabe63

Western Digital 1.5tb sata3 black, 64mb. WD1502FAEX


----------



## Gabe63

Another 1.5tb WDB S3 64MB


----------



## Elektronik

*WD VelociRaptor 10000 rpm 150 GB*


----------



## levontraut

*OCZ AGILITY 2 120 GIG*










*WD BLACK 500 GIG 64MEG CACHE*










*MY OTHER WD BLACK 64 MEG CACHE*










*WD 1 TERABYTE GREEN*










*WD 1 TERABYTE GREEN*










*WD 1 TERABYTE GREEN usb2 docking station*


----------



## OldMX




----------



## Turbobutts

New system drive, sadly slower than my dad's budget build's HD502HJ.


----------



## lun471k

Here is my result:
Intel 510 120Gb SATA III


----------



## TheLombax

I did the test on 6 hard disks, 5 of them are WD's and a Seagate. Also, 5 of them are desktop and the other is a laptop drive, which is in my PS3. All drives are SATA.









Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB WD1002FAEX-00Y9A0 manufactured March 2011. HDD in my sig rig.









Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB WD10EALX-009BA0 manufactured November 2010.









Western Digital Caviar Blue 320GB WD3200AAKS-00L9A0 manufactured June 2009.









Western Digital Scorpio Blue 250GB WD2500BPVT-00ZEST0 manufactured July 2010. Advance format drive for my PS3.


















Western Digital Caviar Green 1TB WD10EARS-00Y5B1 manufactured January 2011.









Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB manufactured 2005. I added this in to show how fast hard drives have gotten since this trusty old unit.


----------



## Doodles

OCZ Vertex 3 SATA III 120GB
(NON-maxIOP)


----------



## stomped

My western digital`s 1TB black in raid


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

and my corsair force 3 ssd



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## CravinR1

WD 640 gig AAKS x2 Raid 0 (over half full :-( )

Not happy with the results since one of the drives got 93 ish in single mode and the other was high 80's


----------



## The Sandman

Two WD Black WD6402AAEX SATAIII 64M 6.0GB/s in RAID 0 (759.5GB free)

WD Black WD5001AALS SATAIII 32M 3.0GB/s (80GB free)

WD Blue WD5000AAKS 16M SATAII 3.0GB/s (102GB free)

Almost time for some SSD's.


----------



## CravinR1

My first SSD:

OCZ Agility 30 gig (RAW, no partition fresh out the box)


----------



## Kwen

Here is my WD Caviar Black 1To


----------



## XiDillon




----------



## moonmanas

Barracuda back up drive


----------



## byrneo

Guys I could use some help deciphering this result. This is two Seagate Barricuda 500GB drives, set to raid 0. Motherboard is Asus P8P67 Pro (Rev 3) and I'm plugged into the SATA 6gb ports. I used short stroke on the second test.

The weird thing us, HDTune tells me my raid is using SATA1 (in the info section - which seems odd) and but it's not the only utility to tell me something strange. Sisoft Sandra tells me my Barricuda drives are 5400rpm, for example, instead of 7200. Even tho they are clearly not, as I've checked the stickers on the drives themselves.

Anyways I don't know, their performance seems pretty good to me. I think?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *byrneo;14678156*
> Guys I could use some help deciphering this result. This is two Seagate Barricuda 500GB drives, set to raid 0. Motherboard is Asus P8P67 Pro (Rev 3) and I'm plugged into the SATA 6gb ports. I used short stroke on the second test.
> 
> The weird thing us, HDTune tells me my raid is using SATA1 (in the info section - which seems odd) and but it's not the only utility to tell me something strange. Sisoft Sandra tells me my Barricuda drives are 5400rpm, for example, instead of 7200. Even tho they are clearly not, as I've checked the stickers on the drives themselves.
> 
> Anyways I don't know, their performance seems pretty good to me. I think?


At first glance performance looks fine. What do you need to decipher?

Don't worry too much about the reported details though.


----------



## byrneo

Well the performance was solid, but notice how it trails off as the test goes on (test 1) . Why is that?

Also with the exception of seek time (obv) it seems near or better average and much higher burst performance than most any other result I've seen posted, including SSDs (even some of the raided SSDs, not XiDillon's tho) I guess I just was wondering why that is.


----------



## the_beast

That performance curve is due to the platters on the drive (effectively less data passes under the heads during a single rotation the closer to the spindle you get, so the speed drops). It's completely normal, and if it isn't there on a full-stroke test it indicates you have a problem. It's not there on the short stroke plot because you aren't reading from the inner (shorter) tracks then, so you don't see the drop.

Burst rate is (almost) irrelevant. Ignore it - it rarely if ever provides anything useful. Yours is high due to caching, not your drives.


----------



## byrneo

Thanks man. I'm very satisfied with their performance, in that case.

I'm still thinking of getting a SSD for my OS, but raid 0 is still pretty speedy in the meantime.


----------



## the_beast

no problem. An SSD is speedy in a whole different kind of way though - run the advanced tests on HDTune and compare the IOPS from SSDs with your drives & you'll see the difference.


----------



## lightsource

2x WD Black 2TB FALS drives, RAID0


----------



## jagz

Normal for a single Spinpoint or???


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jagz*


Normal for a single Spinpoint or???











yeah in the same range as mine, though seems your access times are quite a bit slower than mine (33%)

Previously Posted:

Asus P5B Deluxe (Intel 965 + ICH8R)









Gigabyte P35-S3G (Intel P35 + ICH9)


----------



## xandypx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CravinR1*


yeah in the same range as mine, though seems your access times are quite a bit slower than mine (33%)











Access times are a bit strange... Quite a few access points in the 40-45ms range... what did you have running from the drive when you ran the test. In the few cases, the drive was slow to respond to a data request, and that threw off the average.


----------



## raven117

I was gonna buy this last night
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227738

then i ran my hard drive test. I canceled the order.


----------



## CravinR1

Sequential is not why a SSD is important

These specs are what makes them fly:

4KB Random Read
Up to 12,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write
Up to 2,500 IOPS
Seek Time
0.1 ms


----------



## Sony Oengui

Is this ok for a SATA 2 RAID 0 with 2 WD5000AAKX? The drives are SATA3.0, the mobo supports SATA2.0, but the raid arrangements on the mobo shows them as being SATA 1.0 (1.5 Gb/s).


----------



## flaxseedoil1000

Bought 3 WD10EARS (WD Caviar Green 1 TB), 2 for Intel RST RAID1, the other as a spare / clone for the SSD system drive.

2 seem O.K., the other is 30% slower.

I did swap sata ports, no change.

MSI Z68GD65, RAID mode, SATA2 ports




























Here are the fastest 2 in RAID 1 (Intel RST):


----------



## flaxseedoil1000

Intel 320 SSD 120 GB

MSI Z68GD65, SATA3 port


----------



## deafboy

From Top Right to Bottom Left

Intel 80GB SSD G2
WD Black 640GB AALS
WD Black 1TB FALS
WD Green 2TB EARS


----------



## headmixer

I used an LSI MegaRaid 9260 8i with 8 Crucial M4/64s.

It runs mid 16s most of the time.

This is a good one.

View attachment 231257


Here are two average.

View attachment 231258
View attachment 231259


----------



## ejams

Brand new, no data though I hope that doesn't make my results wrong =(


----------



## Furrby

Corsair Force 3 120gb ssd

Transfer Rate: Min/Max/Avg: 152.1/409.9/318.8 (MB/Second)

Access Time: .1

Burst Rate: 146.1


----------



## Steeps5

Oops... didn't use 2.55. Shall repost.


----------



## bleu90

How is this for a samsung spinpoint f3?


----------



## CravinR1

would be better if we could see an image


----------



## bleu90

Sorry, I'm new. Can you see the image now?


----------



## the_beast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bleu90*


Sorry, I'm new. Can you see the image now?


yep - looks fine


----------



## savasci

OCZ 120gb Solid3










WD 150gb 2.5" 10Krpm Velociraptor


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Heres my setup 4x 320gigs in raid 0 no ssd needed here its near ssd speed.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf;15553706*
> Heres my setup 4x 320gigs in raid 0 no ssd needed here its near ssd speed.


Sequential speeds are good for transferring large files

However, SSDs aare awesome for their < 0.1ms access times


----------



## Abula

Hitachi 2TB 5k3000 HDS5C3020ALA632 (0F12117) with firmware 5C0


----------



## AaronGR

My HITACHI Deskstar 7K3000 2tb


----------



## octiny

3 x Velociraptor 10k raid 0 (2 x 80gb+74gb)


----------



## Jeff78

SSD out of a Sony VAIO SR series.


----------



## PR-Imagery

Seagate ST3320413AS RAID0 (2x320GB 7200rpm SATA III)



Seagate ST91000640NS (1TB 2.5" 7200rpm SATA III)



Western Digital WD10EAVS-00D7B0 (1TB 7200rpm SATA II)



Hitachi HDS723030ALA640 (3TB 7200rpm SATA III)



Seagate ST330006-51AS (3TB 7200rpm SATA III)


----------



## L0GIC

Patriot Pyro 60GB x 2 in Raid 0


----------



## aznofazns

Stock drive WL300GLSA16100 (re-branded WD3000BLFS Raptor):


After short-stroking to 48.8GB. Also note that this is done with HD Tune 4.60, but that shouldn't matter in this test:


----------



## jmikeh

Here's mine from an old Acer laptop.

WD 320GB 2.5 5400RPM.


----------



## Carlitos714

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carlitos714*
> 
> 2x WD Blacks AALS 640 GB short stroked to 320 gb
> 1st time putting any drives in RAID 0


Here are some WD2500AAKS 250GB x2 Raid 0 short stroked to 250 gb


----------



## maddog1964444

Corsair Force 3 120 Gig x2 Raid 0



Transfer Rate:

Min/Max/Avg: 274.6/1041.1/947.5 MB/Second

Access Time: 0.1 ms

Burst Rate: 3331.0 MB/sec ?


----------



## PR-Imagery

2x 256GB Samsung 830 ssds Raid 0


----------



## connectwise

Is this graph normal for a raid?


----------



## piemasterp

Plextor M3 128GB Boot drive - Speeds are unusually slow, but I'm too lazy to redo the test.

Seagate Barracuda 3TB Applications/Storage


----------



## itzzjason

Seagate 2TB (using 1TB platters)


----------



## itzzjason

Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB


----------



## itzzjason

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itzzjason*
> 
> Seagate 2TB (using 1TB platters)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itzzjason*
> 
> Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB


Looks like the Seagate 2TB is faster than the Black 2TB
Is this right?


----------



## RussianJ

Not bad for a well used and nearly full drive. Agility 1 mind you.


----------



## Unknownm




----------



## broken pixel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *connectwise*
> 
> Is this graph normal for a raid?


Hell no, what drives, stripe size and RAID did you make?


----------



## SonicAgamemnon

Upper-left: 1TB RAID0 boot set 2 x Samsung 830 Series 512GB solid state drives

Upper-right: 6TB RAID5 archive set 4 x Western Digital Green 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 5400 RPM disk drives (Drobo)

Lower-left: 4TB RAID0 data set 2 x Western Digital RE4 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 7200 RPM disk drives

Lower-right: 4TB RAID0 data set 2 x Western Digital RE4 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 7200 RPM disk drives

This workstation is used for heavy post-production editing, software engineering and some occasional gaming. 15TB of total formatted storage capacity, 9TB internal and 6TB of external archival storage (Drobo). The RAID0 SSD set boots Windows 7 in 13 seconds, loads applications, providing scratch, swap and temporary rendering space. The RAID0 data sets are primary data storage areas, with the second set holding hot back-ups of my primary projects on the first data set. The RAID5 6TB external Drobo array stores infrequently used information and long-term archival storage. Eventually, very old projects are burned onto BluRay discs for permanent archival.

System specifications:

_Cooler Master Cosmos II
Enermax MaxRevo 1350W power supply
MSI Big Bang-XPower II Intel LGA 2011 X79 mainboard
Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.3GHz LGA 2011 CPU
Corsair Dominator GT 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3 1866Mhz (PC3 15000) 1.5v CAS 9-10-9-27 SDRAM
Two XFX Double Dissipation Black Edition Radeon HD 7970 in CrossFireX
Two Pioneer BDR-207DBKS Blu-ray optical drives
1TB RAID0 boot set: 2 x Samsung 830 Series 512GB solid state drives
4TB RAID0 data set: 2 x Western Digital RE4 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 7200 RPM disk drives
4TB RAID0 data set: 2 x Western Digital RE4 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 7200 RPM disk drives
6TB RAID5 archive set: 4 x Western Digital Green 2TB SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" 5400 RPM disk drives
Two CyberPower PP110 battery back-up power units
Windows 7 Professional (64-bit)_


----------



## lagittaja

Let's bump this up here's my data on Samsung HD103UJ and HD103SJ, Western Digital WD1001FALS and WD30EFRX

http://imgur.com/a/MNhCZ
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/5079/hdtunepro.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QQ2Fy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KTQ7A.jpg

Adding stuff to the spreadsheet now.


----------



## Mike H

Here is my system running HD Tune Pro:

2 - Samsung 840 Pro SSD, 256GB, Raid0 - 128k Stripe, X79 Chipset..


----------



## SRICE4904

2 x WD3000HLFS Raid 0
2 x Hitachi Deskstar 500gb Raid 0


----------



## K62-RIG

Heres mine with 2 OCZ SSDs in RAID 0. Not sure if it's good or not.


----------



## Unknownm

Samsung 840 (non pro) RAID0 - z87 Intel RAID.


----------



## Bride

4x Samsung 840 EVO 250Gb on Z370 RAID


----------

