# HDD benchmark



## pt (Aug 25, 2006)

here is the link:
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public...request=HdTach
the competition has started, post your results

ps: (make a *LONG* test)
ps2: results are put by higher burst result
ps3: you can enter with more than one hdd
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"HDTACH SCORE CHART"* *complete list* 
*1 tigger69 - 323.2mb/s - 2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r)*
*2* mikelopez - 258.6mb/s - 250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2
*3* Alec§taar - 167.1mb/s - WD "Raptor 'X'" disks IN RAID 0 Array via Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM controller
*4* giorgos th. - 135.7mb/s - Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I
*5* steevo - 121.4mb/s - 2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller)
*6* zekrahminator - 110.7mb/s - WD 160GB sata hdd 
*7* YiK -104.5mb/s - Maxtor 80GB IDE
*8* YiK - 94.6mb/s - WD 80GB IDE
*9* pt - 84.6mb/s - 40GB IDE seagate barracuda

*RAID SATA and SATA2 CLUB*
*1* tigger69 - 326.5mb/s - 2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r)
*2* Alec§taar - 167.1mb/s - WD "Raptor 'X'" disks IN RAID 0 Array via Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM controller
*3* steevo - 121.4mb/s - 2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller)

*SATA and Sata2 CLUB*
*1* mikelopez - 258.6mb/s - 250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2
*2* giorgos th. - 135.7mb/s - Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I
*3* zekrahminator - 110.7mb/s - WD 160GB sata hdd

*IDE CLUB*
*1* YiK -104.5mb/s - Maxtor 80GB IDE
*2* YiK - 93.4mb/s - WD 80GB IDE
*3* pt - 84.6mb/s - 40GB IDE seagate barracuda

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## i_am_mustang_man (Aug 25, 2006)

sandra sis software has a bunch of benchmarking, including hdd


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 26, 2006)

hd tach


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

here is the link:
http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach
the competition has started, post your results
(btw, i wan't a new HDD so i wan't to know wich one performs better)


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> is there any benchmark programm for HDD, since there is a GFX, CPU and MEM. benchmarks thread running i tought HDD should have one thread too
> any programms?



INSTG8R & I (plus a few others iirc) did one using HDTach... good "end user/desktop pattern" type of test.

IoMeter is another, albeit geared to "server patterns" type tests.

* BOTH would be NICE to see! 

I.E./E.G.-> Each person does a IoMeter result, & a HDTach result...

APK


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

here it is the hdtach at quick, on my old 40gb ide seagate






how do i run the IOmeter?


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> how do i run the IOmeter?



It's a bit "nerdy" but, there is an entire section in its .pdf file it comes with... it uses 2 programs (Iometer.exe & Dynamo.exe) & can run remotely, or locally.

* READ IT!

(Sorry to be so "terse" about it, but I have to run & meet a pal... we are "laying low" tonite (FRIDAY of all nites to do THAT), & chillin' to Philmz (movies) tonite @ my place, but I have to meet him @ a store (buying MuNcHiEz!!!)).

APK

P.S.=> Ordinarily (it's been a while since I used it myself) I would write it out for you, but AM in huge hurry... & I asked the SAME QUESTIONS myself. 

Again - sorry!

It's NOT mandatory to run that for your tests man... if it is too much hassle, don't!

(Still, would be NICE to see both test patterns types tested here)... apk


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 26, 2006)

mine-





2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r)


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

does anyone has one of the new seagate hdd with perpendicular recording (7200.10)?
i would like to see the score of that one

did you use the quick or long one tigger69?


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> does anyone has one of the new seagate hdd with perpendicular recording (7200.10)?
> i would like to see the score of that one



Search thru my posts, look for the test we did there (have to make this short, my friend is waiting for me in the other room):

ONE WITH INSTG8R in it, he has one... tore me apart on READS, but I got him on Access/Seek & CPU use (big on both here).

APK

P.S.=> BUT, I also use the FASTEST SATA I disks there is, huge buffers on them (16mb each) & IN RAID 0 (vs. his single disk perp. tech recording type) & 10,000rpm rate... hence, the faster Access/Seek times.

My RAID 0 array is also driven via a Caching SATA controller w/ 128mb ECC RAM onboard it AND an Intel "Super I/O" firmware/cpu on it to offload my SYSTEM mobo CPU (hence, it showed 0% CPU-use)... apk


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 26, 2006)

long one.
is this any good?.


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> long one.
> is this any good?.



no idea, run the quick one


----------



## mikelopez (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> does anyone has one of the new seagate hdd with perpendicular recording (7200.10)?
> i would like to see the score of that one



Here you go:


----------



## Steevo (Aug 26, 2006)

PCI bus limited.

I have a set of these in a intel mobo that will run much faster, faster than a set of the "almighty" raptors.


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

keep them comming
the ones above are quick or long benches?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 26, 2006)

heres a quick one-


----------



## giorgos th. (Aug 26, 2006)

Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I.


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

looks like tigger69 Hitachi's are kicking ass's 

Updated score on the first post of the thread


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 26, 2006)

erm, it doesnt say in the chart, so im guessing places are done by burst results?


----------



## giorgos th. (Aug 26, 2006)

as it seems from the chart,yes.


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

Ketxxx said:


> erm, it doesnt say in the chart, so im guessing places are done by burst results?



yes, should i put it in other way?


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 26, 2006)

probably just worth noting results are by burst result. if your looking for maximum accuracy from the test tho use the long one, it still only takes like a minuite at most. (well for me anyway)


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

NEW RULES:
use the long run for better scores
scores are put in by burst result


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

here is mine in long bench:


----------



## _33 (Aug 26, 2006)

giorgos th. said:


> Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I.



You got some pretty nice (if not AMAZING) graphics scores.  But the HDD performance really lags behind a chunk...  All you need is a second HDD of the same size and generation of your current and make a RAID0 setup, and you will more than double that speed.  Windows will boot much much faster, games will load much faster, as well as levels in games, or anything else, including windows page files and performing a defrag.

Good luck!


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 26, 2006)

or, just buy a SATA2 drive and be done with it


----------



## giorgos th. (Aug 26, 2006)

my barracuda is a sata II drive,but the mobo gets only sata I.
_33 i`m just waiting to be paid..then i`ll probably get another one.


----------



## giorgos th. (Aug 26, 2006)

long read.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 26, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> heres a quick one-



This would denote a oversaturated bus, more information than the system could possibly be moving even at 100% throughput. 


It is a flaw in the program.


----------



## _33 (Aug 26, 2006)

giorgos th. said:


> my barracuda is a sata II drive,but the mobo gets only sata I.
> _33 i`m just waiting to be paid..then i`ll probably get another one.



Well, good luck.  I did that 2 weeks ago, and I have to say it's highly recommended.  It's a defacto for my future systems.  I didn't yet post my benchmarks because I have to change cluster size.  It's currently set at a ridiculous 4K.  It's going to be changed probably to 16K, and put the stripe size to 16K also.


----------



## _33 (Aug 26, 2006)

Steevo said:


> This would denote a oversaturated bus, more information than the system could possibly be moving even at 100% throughput.
> 
> 
> It is a flaw in the program.



Between his system and your, I would say yours is badly configurated, and his is perfectly set up.  How big is your stripe size?

CRAPPY RAID PERFORMANCE THREAD


----------



## zekrahminator (Aug 26, 2006)

Yes, I know, compared to all of yours, it sucks. But this is just a single drive, and it kicks the crap out of a comparable Seagate Barracuda. It's supposed to be SATA2 but my onboard SATA2 controller has "issues". 7200RPM, SATA2 in an SATA slot, 160GB. It does what I want it to do .


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 26, 2006)

what the hell are you playing halo for boy? at least play halo 2


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 26, 2006)

how can i check my stripe and cluster sizes.

oh and my first test pic i posted was a long one and it was 326mb/sec,can i have that as my score please as it was faster by 3mb/sec?.


----------



## zekrahminator (Aug 26, 2006)

I play Halo because it kicks ass and Halo 2 hasn't come out for the PC yet .


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 26, 2006)

i saw a m8 playing a port of sorts yesterday,  i suggest you do the same cos halo sucks


----------



## _33 (Aug 26, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> how can i check my stripe and cluster sizes.
> 
> oh and my first test pic i posted was a long one and it was 326mb/sec,can i have that as my score please as it was faster by 3mb/sec?.



Your stripe size usually can be seen in the RAID tool that comes with your card/motherboard.  Otherwise, the best you might do is check with Partition Magic 8.05 and use that to fine tune your cluster size.  But as it seems, you already have a pretty good setup / performance IMHO.  I wouldn't see much more than 325 MB/s burst rate to be achievable.  But I'm not an expert.  Your benches seem fairly decent.  Have you disabled read cache?


----------



## Yik (Aug 26, 2006)

WD 80GB IDE


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> oh and my first test pic i posted was a long one and it was 326mb/sec,can i have that as my score please as it was faster by 3mb/sec?.



nop, giorgos th., steevo and mikelopez have to run the test too in long (if they haven't, and want to stay on the list), you can try it out aafter a reformat, or a defrag for more pts


----------



## giorgos th. (Aug 26, 2006)

my second result is from a long read test.


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

sry giorgos th., forgot you already posted your score in long

does anyone has a raid0 here with more than 2 hdd?


----------



## _33 (Aug 26, 2006)

*Unoptimized bench*

Here are my results from my unoptimized 64K stripe 4K cluster setting.  I couldn't switch to 16K cluster from PM 8.05 as it generated an error after doing so and reverted back to 4K.  The optimum setting I will eventually use is 16K/16K.  These results are with read cache set to off.  Also to be noted, one disk is almost 1 year old and the other is barely 2 weeks old, but both are Western Digital WD2500KS-00MJB0.


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

I'll be joining you guys here, soon!



* Keep it alive pt!

APK


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt, something for you to scan:

A perpendicular recording disk's results, vs my own setup in my sig below!

(I will be using those scores, bit busy today doing the AquaMark 3 test scores & avg.'ing them out, so I will post those results here, mine that is...)

*INSTG8R's SEAGATE "PERPENDICULAR RECORDING TECHNOLOGY" DISK RESULTS (SATA 2 single drive):*

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=13650








* I suppose we could be "crafty" & "appropriate/borrow" his score image for THIS thread too, don't ya think?

LOL!

*APK WD "Raptor 'X'" disks IN RAID 0 Array via Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM controller (SATA 1 RAID 0 - NOTE the 0% cpu utilization!):*






*APK CENATEK "ROCKETDRIVE" SOLID-STATE DISK PCI2.2 bus/PC-133 SDRAM RESULTS (note the seek/access time & AVG. READ vs. my std. HDD RAID 0 even AND INSTG8R's perp tech disk):*






(I added in the SSD's scores I use as well, just for comparison... I cannot wait for the DDRDrive x1 PCI-Express bus using/DDR-RAM using model this Solid-State disk will be... it will blow the one I use, away, imo!)

APK

P.S.=> On reads, he KILLED me, but on CPU-use & Seek/Access times? I won those, hands-down... apk


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 26, 2006)

any more hitachi's to compare to mine.


----------



## Yik (Aug 26, 2006)

A quick defrag gave me slightly better results than before;






Heres my Maxtor 80GB IDE (DM8 or 9)






Also, I have a partition that stores my page file on my WD drive. The PF partition's FS is Fat32. Would this be likely to lwoer my results?


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

scores updated, and new rules (can enter more than one hdd)
can anyone tell me how 2x80gb hitachi beated 2xraptors? 
_33 wich score should i post?


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> scores updated, and new rules (can enter more than one hdd)
> can anyone tell me how 2x80gb hitachi beated 2xraptors?
> _33 wich score should i post?



Argh, FRIGGIN' TIGGER69!!!

(Ever my Achilles in tests, & me being Hector of Troy of course vs. he... lol!)



* He just has FAST disks apparently!

(HOWEVER, they ARE raid 0 as well like mine are BUT he is running SATA II (better transfer rates than SATA I) vs. my SATA I's in RAID 0).

APK


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt, you ought to "bust those apart" more as far as categories, & good reason for it, technical ones:

Just my opinion/just a thought upon closer inspection of the charts!

There ARE superior things in SATA 2 iirc, like upper transfer ceilings being greater than 150mb/sec in SATA 2 for instance, vs. SATA 1... 

(Thus, not exactly a "FAIR" comparison & may justify doing an SATA 1 category separate from SATA 2 , rather than keeping them in the SAME GROUP)...

Disks are the MOST interesting thing on computers imo, because they are the slowest thing (I am one for the underdog, the long-shots out there in life).

APK

P.S.=> AND... give it time, more folks WILL join this, they usually do... but, takes time is all, I know this from the two tests I charted in Sciencemark 2.0 & AquaMark3... 

*(EDIT) IMPORTANT #1:* pt, add INSTG8R's score from the test I did w/ him... I am certain the man wouldn't mind @ all, I mean... would you? The photo's legit & all that...

*(EDIT) IMPORTANT #1:* pt, it may be a pain, but can you do charts for the seek/access & also CPU usage as well? Make the review/test MORE COMPREHENSIVE, because the data is there after all... READ scores alone do NOT tell the complete story on diskdrives! apk


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

Alec§taar said:


> pt, you ought to "bust those apart" more as far as categories, & good reason for it, technical ones:
> 
> Just my opinion/just a thought upon closer inspection of the charts!
> 
> ...




i will do it, but i'm a bit busy today and tomorrow i'm going on vacation again, keep ppl updated while i'm not here if you can


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> i will do it, but i'm a bit busy today and tomorrow i'm going on vacation again, keep ppl updated while i'm not here if you can



Heh, ok... I THINK I can handle "juggling" 3 of these tests charts (ScienceMark 2.0, AquaMark 3, & HD Tach 3.0), if need be!



(OK, if/when I do this? We are "even-steven/squared-up" for your providing the idea to add CPU types/RAM etc. in the ScienceMark 2.0 test too, deal?)

LOL!

* Gotta set the contract now & all that... lol!

APK

P.S.=> You build the "base template" for the categories, & I can maintain them when you split & go enjoy life (and all that good stuff)... apk


----------



## _33 (Aug 26, 2006)

pt said:


> scores updated, and new rules (can enter more than one hdd)
> can anyone tell me how 2x80gb hitachi beated 2xraptors?
> _33 wich score should i post?



Didn't you want to use the fast test scores?  I personally prefer the longer test scores as they are probably little more accurate (if that is possible).  I would also (if I were you) indicate "average read rate" which you can get from everyone's screen capture.

Good luck!

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the title is inapropriate IMHO because we are dealing here with HDTACH and not ANY HDD performance utility.  ATTO Disk Benchmark is another one I trust for brute force HDD performance.


----------



## pt (Aug 26, 2006)

Alec§taar said:


> Heh, ok... I THINK I can handle "juggling" 3 of these tests charts (ScienceMark 2.0, AquaMark 3, & HD Tach 3.0), if need be!




ok, i'm going to be out for more than a week, if you can "juggle" with them, and want to, do it

i think the sm2 thread is dying but when i get the psu and cooler it will probabily be back to life


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

pt said:


> ok, i'm going to be out for more than a week, if you can "juggle" with them, and want to, do it



Sure/certainly/will do... why not?

Again: As I find harddisks the MOST interesting portion of a system... it piques the curiousity to see how mine stacks up, vs. others here.

Consider it done.



pt said:


> i think the sm2 thread is dying but when i get the psu and cooler it will probabily be back to life



Oh, I agree, and in a way? I am actually GLAD it's finally "dying down" some... it kept me extremely busy (relative term) @ times... sometimes, too much so.

* Anyhow - go enjoy your free time man! We'll see you on the bounce...



APK


----------



## pt (Aug 27, 2006)

we have to get a memory only benchmark too, so all covers are based


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

pt said:


> we have to get a memory only benchmark too, so all covers are based



Yes, I think that's in order... but, I think that Super-Pi 1.5 mod test that giorgos.th ran is such a test.

APK


----------



## _33 (Aug 27, 2006)

pt said:


> we have to get a memory only benchmark too, so all covers are based



There is a memory quote/bench done in the Sciencemark 2.0.  Also, there are memory benchmarks in Everest and in Sisoft Sandra.

Cheers!


----------



## cdawall (Aug 27, 2006)

i just found this here my old shool maxtor 
ata 133 
not bad for ancient tech its almost 6-7yrs old


----------



## Steevo (Aug 27, 2006)

_33 said:


> Between his system and your, I would say yours is badly configurated, and his is perfectly set up.  How big is your stripe size?
> 
> CRAPPY RAID PERFORMANCE THREAD



Burst size is extremely high on his due to the ICHR7 being integrated into the southbridge controller and having full bandwidth available, and the fact that it is reading out of the onboard cache, Hitachi drives are very quick, and seem to make better use of the cache than other drives.

http://www.osnn.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81436

However, look at Average speed, and sustained output for the drives. Sure based on burst speed it kicks my systems ass, but how often is the next level preloaded into the drives cache?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 27, 2006)

i guess i'm still at the top then.lol

come on there must be someone else who has hitachi drives to compete.

how come no one else is having this "anomoly"


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

Good Morning Everyone (8 a.m. here, & I just got up, having my coffee & re-reading this thread now):

Cdawall, & _33: I'll be charting in those results in lieu of pt (man's on vacation enjoying his life) today, so rest assured, it will be done shortly.

Steevo: VERY interesting point & read!

Tigger69: Again, "DAMN YOU" lol... (see my post about you above!)



* Anyhow, gimme some time... I will:

1.) Add new scores

2.) Bust the chart up more (don't think we have QUITE enough "takers" yet for that though so I may hold off on it (making SATA I *separated*, from SATA II disks))

3.) I am also going to add in MORE than just "READ SPEEDS" but also CPU usage and SEEK/ACCESS time as well... 

4.) Lastly, I will add a section with "avg. read" too!

APK

P.S.=> Let's make this one more comprehensive & more fun, so we draw more from it by way of comparison to aid us in future decision making on parts to buy, as well as have a "competition amongst one another" of course... apk


----------



## _33 (Aug 27, 2006)

Steevo said:


> Burst size is extremely high on his due to the ICHR7 being integrated into the southbridge controller and having full bandwidth available, and the fact that it is reading out of the onboard cache, Hitachi drives are very quick, and seem to make better use of the cache than other drives.
> 
> http://www.osnn.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81436
> 
> However, look at Average speed, and sustained output for the drives. Sure based on burst speed it kicks my systems ass, but how often is the next level preloaded into the drives cache?



Actually I wouldn't argue a score like what Ti66er is showing in that thread or this one here.  It's just a high score that is achievable.  But I tought yours is pretty low in comparison since you have a raid0 setup (but I understood *PCI* bus limited = 133MB/sec).  So, what's the stripe size and cluster size?


----------



## regan1985 (Aug 27, 2006)




----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

I'll update (sorry for delay guys, busy here @ home & yes, in other posts on this forums)... if pt does not & he MAY not.

(Waiting to see & doing the breakout I mention above now, finally)



* Again - apologies for delay!

APK


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

*HD TACH 3 TEST ALL TAKERS BY CATEGORIES CHART (not broken out by disktypes)*

REPOSTING TO LAST PAGE... apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

*Hd Tach 3 Test By Disktypes Used*

REPOSTING TO LAST PAGE... apk


----------



## _33 (Aug 27, 2006)

Are you sure you read my benches properly dude?  Maybe a little confused?

*POST #42 dude  *


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

_33 said:


> Are you sure you read my benches properly dude?  Maybe you want me to be in the last spots?  What's your excuse?



LOL, do you know how much data there is, AND formatting to make it look nice?

TONS! Believe you me: It is NOT that simple...



_33 said:


> Maybe a little confused?



Honestly, @ times on this one (& the others I did in AquaMark 3 & ScienceMark 2.0?): 

YES! lol...

(Especially that latter one, broken out by disks!)

The 2nd set is FAR from done & ordered properly, first "ALL" group is near done (just doing avg.'s now).

(Feel free to take over man, or be patient!)

APK


----------



## _33 (Aug 27, 2006)

Alec§taar said:


> LOL, do you know how much data there is?
> 
> It is NOT that simple...
> 
> ...



Well, you decided to take this.  I never even considered doing groupings of benches and making lists.  Maybe I got upset at first.  But being mistaken is a very bad thing.  Let's say you're at the airport, prepared to go to Hawaï, and at your arrival, your luggages ended up in Los Angeles...


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

_33 said:


> Well, you decided to take this.



I was asked to by pt, did it as a favor. This is all... 

(I figured PT did me, & ALL OF US, right by making a suggestion in the ScienceMark 2.0 test, to add CPU types & such. He did the data gather there)

Thus, I owed him one!

(As it made it a MUCH better test, & most viewed thread on these forums to date, plenty of participants, & GREAT overall test!)

You started the thread man, you ought to know - I did the work there though... wasn't ANY simpler than this one... believe me!



_33 said:


> I never even considered doing groupings of benches and making lists.  Maybe I got upset at first.  But being mistaken is a very bad thing.  Let's say you're at the airport, prepared to go to Hawaï, and at your arrival, your luggages ended up in Los Angeles...



TELL You what - just be patient.

I hate doing the second chart to be honest... but, it needs doing for the heck of it, so it is more "fair" to all concerned.

Please, just wait, nearly done!

APK

P.S.=> Do you guys NEED or WANT to keep the 2nd chart? 

We can!

The hardest part of these? RIGHT NOW!

The INITIAL designing of the charts (thinking it out), formatting them nicely, & the "data-gather" really... trust me, it is a BEETCH!

BUT, after that it's pretty much cake (even the averages really, the groups here are TINY thusfar, 12 numbers to punch in is NOT bad, now 40 or so is (like in ScienceMark 2, whew))... apk


----------



## _33 (Aug 27, 2006)

Alec§taar said:


> I was asked to by pt, did it as a favor. This is all...
> 
> (I figured PT did me, & ALL OF US, right by making a suggestion in the ScienceMark 2.0 test, to add CPU types & such. He did the data gather there)
> 
> ...



You don't have to do 2 charts, you can do 1 chart like it was before.  I don't see the need for exagerating the significance of HDTACH since it's not even accurate.  1 accurate chart with the exact values is really enough IMHO, and you do have some fixing to do on my part already.  If you want my hints, 1 overall chart woul dbe a start, and then charts segregated by system type, say IDE? SATA1, SATA2, SCSI.  RAID or NO RAID, I think it makes no difference.   A 15K HDD can squash a RAID0 setup.  And a RAID1 isn't necessarely aimed at performance.


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

_33 said:


> You don't have to do 2 charts, you can do 1 chart like it was before.



IT IS HOW PT HAD IT BEFORE MAN - he even broke it out! See first page... I kept it as he had it with formatting & info mods.



_33 said:


> I don't see the need for exagerating the significance of HDTACH since it's not even accurate.



Accurate enough!

We ALL run those same "inaccuracies"... 

(Thus, test conditions are the same for us all I would think @ least).



_33 said:


> 1 accurate chart with the exact values is really enough IMHO, and you do have some fixing to do on my part already.



Long ago done!

I am now in the averages stages on second longer chart - only 2 groups away now from finish.



_33 said:


> If you want my hints, 1 overall chart woul dbe a start, and then charts segregated by system type, say IDE? SATA1, SATA2, SCSI.  RAID or NO RAID, I think it makes no difference.



I agree, 1 chart would be simplest, but I will wait out others's thoughts.

If we had more takers? I'd bust out SATA 1 vs. SATA 2 & suggested it earlier... this is when pt handed it over to me (man's on his vacation, & did me a fav. in the ScienceMark 2.0 test, I owed him one (I am "big" on that)).



_33 said:


> A 15K HDD can squash a RAID0 setup.  And a RAID1 isn't necessarely aimed at performance.



We don't have any 15k UltraScSi Cheetahs in here... but, it's not outta the question in SOME areas (seeks especially)...

APK

P.S.=> The hard part's done now, designing charts, tag formatting them, doing the data gather... rest is cake, even AVERAGES since the groups are puny! apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

*HDTach 3.0 Results/Scores/Standings ALL users by Seek, CPU, READS*

REPOSTING TO ADD WOLVERINE SCORE... apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Aug 27, 2006)

*HDTach 3.0 Scores/Results/Standings by SEEK, CPU, & READS (by disktype used)*

REPOSTING TO ADD WOLVERINE SCORE & CORRECT _33's PLACEMENT IN GROUP HIS SYSTEM IS IN... apk


----------



## _33 (Aug 27, 2006)

Alec§taar said:


> *=========================================
> RAID SATA & SATA2 CLUB (ACCESS/SEEK DATA)
> =========================================*
> 
> ...



Those are not my config.  I should appear in the RAID section.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 27, 2006)

it is-giorgos th who has this drive-Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I

i believe _33 has wd 250gb sataIIx2

by the way _33,i think my stripe size is 128k and my cluster size is 4k.why is 4k a ridiculous size?.i nvr really knew about stripe or cluster size when i set it up.would my result have anything to do with the stripe and cluster sizes?.would my test score be lower if i changed them.
sorry for all the questions,just like to learn.


----------



## _33 (Aug 28, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> it is-giorgos th who has this drive-Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I
> 
> i believe _33 has wd 250gb sataIIx2
> 
> ...



All good questions I might add.  The problem I found with Windows XP Home Edition or Pro, is that it prefers cluster sizes of 4K.  If you put cluster sizes bigger than 4K, then Windows file compression is disactivated.  if you try to change the cluster size to 16K, you have to make sure you have NO COMPRESSED files or ENCRYPTED files.  So if you launch say Partition Magic 8.05 and try to change cluster size to 16K, it will give an error 1681 and will stop the inspection without even trying to change cluster size.  I haven't even been able to change my cluster size yet.  Still have error 1681.  Thoe, the advantage would be faster file manipulation, as it's throwing around 16K chunks instead of 4K.

The stripe size is different.  Every stripe in your case is 128K.  That means 128K on one disk, then 128K on the other disk, etc etc.  But if you have a 2K file, you actually use 256K disk space for that.  Can't confirm 100% but that's the logic.  But that makes for good burst speeds like what you showed in your benchmark.  The average stripe size is 64K, and the recommended for system/gaming is 16K for optimum space usage + speed.  So, the best in my case I would use is 16K stripe and 16K cluster.  In that case it would be a cluster per stripe per disk, perfect balance.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 28, 2006)

nxt time i have to re-install,i will try 16k+16k as i am sure i can set them in the raid setup.i nvr changed them when i set up the raid as i did'nt know what i was doing.

thx for the answers .i might read up a little on the subject too.


----------



## -Wolverine- (Aug 28, 2006)

Hitachi 250GB SATA2




and with 0% CPU usage


----------



## zekrahminator (Aug 28, 2006)

My CPU usage is that high only because my parents refuse to dump AOL .


----------



## Steevo (Aug 28, 2006)

2X Maxtor DM10 on a ICHR6 RAID 0 volume.

128K stripe.


This was taken off our server while it was live on the network.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 28, 2006)

hey there steevo,my drives have a 128k stripe and 4k cluster size.

i dont know why my test is so high,i have done it over and over to make sure it is not an anomaly.mebbe hitachi drives are pretty good.

there is a new 160gb hitachi out that uses perp tech and some tweaks too seems ok.its a deskstar 7K160.


----------



## _33 (Aug 28, 2006)

Steevo said:


> 2X Maxtor DM10 on a ICHR6 RAID 0 volume.
> 
> 128K stripe.
> 
> ...



Hah, I think I can feel comfortable with my system for home use then 

Thoe 128K stripes for a server wouldn't usually be recommended.  That makes for unusually big chunks for single files and serving many people.  32K would probably be better suited for a multi-user environment.  Even 16K in fact.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 28, 2006)

Our datasets are 4Gb+ eac and we have a few.


----------



## _33 (Aug 28, 2006)

Steevo said:


> Our datasets are 4Gb+ eac and we have a few.



Ok, that's probably a good reason then.

Normally I would get around 270MB/s burst read, but since I disable read caching, it let's the HDDs handle that which is much faster.  I went in windows system settings and tweaked that in the Nforce4 ADMA Controller.  I don't know if everyone has these switches available.


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 5, 2006)

*HD Tach 3.0 Competition Scores/Standings/Results on 09-05-2006 (ALL SCORES)*

*=========================================
(ACCESS/SEEK DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar* =*8.8ms* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*2. giorgos th* =*12.8ms* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*3. tigger69* = *12.9ms* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*3. steevo* =*12.9ms* - (92xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*4. zekrahminator* = *13.2ms* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*5. _33* = * 13.5ms* - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)

*6. YiK* = *13.6ms* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*6. cdawall* =*13.6ms* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*7. YiK* =*13.9ms* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*8. mikelopez* =*14ms* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*9. regan1985* =*15.3ms* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*10. pt* = *17.1ms* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*11. Wolverine* =*17.6ms* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL SEEK/ACCESS DATA (12 members):* 13.78ms
**************************************************



*=========================================
(CPU USAGE DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar*=*0% * - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*1. YiK* =*0%* - (WD 80GB IDE)

*1. Wolverine* =*0%* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*2. mikelopez* =*2%* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*2. giorgos th* =*2%* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*2. regan1985* =*2%* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*2. _33* = * 2%* - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)

*2. YiK* =*2%* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*2. cdawall* =*2%* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*3. pt* = *3%* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*3. tigger69* = *3%* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*5. steevo* =*4%* - (92xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*6. zekrahminator* = *11%* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL CPU USE DATA (12 members):* 2.54%
**************************************************



*=========================================
(READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list
=========================================*

*1. tigger69* = * 323.2mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*2. _33* = *304.1mb/s* - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*3. mikelopez* =* 258.6mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*4. Wolverine* =*224.5mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*5. Alec§taar* =* 167.1mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*6. giorgos th* =* 133.8mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*7. regan1985* =*122.9mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*8. steevo* =* 121.4mb/s* - (92xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*9. YiK* =* 104.5mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*10. YiK* = * 94.6mb/s* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*11. cdawall* =* 91.8mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*12. pt* = * 84.6mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL READ DATA (12 members):* 156.24mb/s
**************************************************



*=========================================
 (AVG READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list
=========================================*

*1. steevo* =*99.8mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*2. _33* = * 99.5ms/s* - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)

*3. tigger69* = *97.6mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*4. Alec§taar* =*65.6mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*5. mikelopez* =*65.1mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*6. giorgos th* =*61.7mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*7. Wolverine* =*56mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*8. zekrahminator* = *55.2mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*9. regan1985* =*52.2mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*10. YiK* =*51.8mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*11. pt* = *49.4mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*12. YiK* = *49ms/s* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*13. cdawall* =*31.7mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL AVGREAD DATA (12 members):* 64.20mb/s
**************************************************



APK

P.S.=> DONE! apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 5, 2006)

*HD Tach 3.0 Competition Scores/Standings/Results on 09-05-2006 (Scores by DiskType)*

*=========================================
RAID SATA & SATA2 CLUB (ACCESS/SEEK DATA)
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar* =*8.8ms* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*2. tigger69* =*12.9ms* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*2. steevo* =*12.9ms* - (92xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*3. _33* = *13.5ms* - (wd 250gb sataIIx2)

*4. regan1985* =*15.3ms* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA 2 RAID 0 ACCESS-SEEK DATA (5 members):* 12.68ms
**************************************************

*=========================================
SATA & Sata2 CLUB (ACCESS/SEEK DATA)
=========================================*

*1. giorgos th* =*12.8ms* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*2. zekrahminator* =*13.2ms* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*3. mikelopez* =*14ms* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*4. Wolverine* =*17.6ms* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA 2 ACCESS-SEEK DATA (3 members):* 14.40ms
**************************************************

*=========================================
IDE/EIDE PATA CLUB (ACCESS/SEEK DATA)
=========================================*

*1. YiK* = *13.6ms* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*1. cdawall* =*13.6ms* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*2. YiK* =*13.9ms* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*3. pt* =*17.1ms* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)
**************************************************
*AVG IDE/EIDE PATA ACCESS-SEEK DATA (4 members):* 14.55ms
**************************************************



*=========================================
RAID SATA & SATA2 CLUB (CPU USAGE DATA)
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar* =*0%* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*1. YiK* =*0%* - (WD 80GB IDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*2. YiK* =*2%* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*2. _33* = *2%* - (wd 250gb sataIIx2)

*2. regan1985* =*2%* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*3. tigger69* =*3%* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*4. steevo* =*4%* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA 2 RAID CPU USE DATA (6 members):* 1.83%
**************************************************

*=========================================
SATA & Sata2 CLUB (CPU USAGE DATA)
=========================================*

*1. Wolverine* =*0%* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*2. mikelopez* =*2%* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*2. giorgos th* =*2%* - ()
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*3. zekrahminator* =*11%* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA 2 CPU USE DATA (4 members):* 4.25%
**************************************************

*=========================================
IDE/EIDE/PATA CLUB (CPU USAGE DATA)
=========================================*

*1. YiK* =*0%* - (WD 80GB IDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*2. YiK* =*2%* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*2. cdawall* =*2%* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*3. pt* =*3%* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)
**************************************************
*AVG IDE/EIDE PATA CPU USE DATA (4 members):* 1.75%
**************************************************



*=========================================
RAID SATA & SATA2 CLUB (READ DATA)
=========================================*

*1. tigger69* =* 326.5mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*2. Alec§taar* =* 167.1mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*3. regan1985* =*122.9mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*4. steevo* =* 121.4mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA2 RAID READ DATA (4 members):* 184.48mb/s
**************************************************

*=========================================
SATA & Sata2 CLUB (READ DATA)
=========================================*

*1. _33* = *304.1mb/s* - (wd 250gb sataIIx2)

*2. mikelopez* =*258.6mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*3. Wolverine* =*224.5mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*4. giorgos th* =*135.7mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*5. zekrahminator* =*110.7mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA2 READ DATA (4 members):* 206.72mb/s
**************************************************

*=========================================
IDE/EIDE PATA CLUB (READ DATA)
=========================================*

*1. YiK* =*104.5mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*2. YiK* =* 93.4mb/s* - (WD 80GB IDE)

*3. cdawall* =* 91.8mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*4. pt* =* 84.6mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)
**************************************************
*AVG IDE/EIDE PATA READ DATA (4 members):* 93.58mb/s
**************************************************



*=========================================
RAID SATA & SATA2 CLUB (AVG READ DATA)
=========================================*

*1. steevo* =*99.8mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*2. tigger69* =*97.6ms/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*3. Alec§taar* =*65.6mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))
**************************************************
*AVG SATA/SATA 2 AVGREAD DATA (3 members):* 87.67mb/s
**************************************************

*=========================================
SATA & Sata2 CLUB (AVG READ DATA)
=========================================*

*1. _33* = *99.5mb/s* - (wd 250gb sataIIx2)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*2. mikelopez* =*65.1mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*3. giorgos th* =*61.7mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*4. Wolverine* =*56mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*4. zekrahminator* =*55.2mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*5. regan1985* =*52.2mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)
**************************************************
*AVG ALL SATA/SATA 2 AVGREAD DATA (5 members):* 66.74mb/s
**************************************************

*=========================================
IDE/EIDE PATA CLUB (AVG READ DATA)
=========================================*

*1. YiK* =*51.8mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*2. pt* =*49.4mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*3. YiK* =*49mb/s]* - (WD 80GB IDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*4. cdawall* =*31.7mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
**************************************************
*AVG IDE/EIDE PATA READ DATA (4 members):* 45.48mb/s
**************************************************


APK

P.S.=> DONE! apk


----------



## cdawall (Sep 5, 2006)

hey do i need to turn off extra stuff to run this??? or was my 1st test w/ my normal crap going ok


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 5, 2006)

i ran mine with all my other crap going,i'm not even sure if it would speed up the result by stopping processes and stuff(anyone?).


----------



## munz778 (Sep 8, 2006)

*these drives rock!*

2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode) on P4C800-E Deluxe (Intel ICH5R)


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 8, 2006)

munz778 said:


> 2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode) on P4C800-E Deluxe (Intel ICH5R)



Very fast performer there on READ & AVG. READ SPEEDS, no questions asked: You have the FASTEST SETUP THERE IS ON THE AVG. READ AREA NOW!

Thus, I will update the chart according with your added score in minutes!

(Thanks for participating, because of the 3 tests I have charted here in ScienceMark 2.0, AquaMark 3, & this one (HD Tach 3.0)? I am MOST interested personally in this one about diskdrives!).

APK


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 8, 2006)

*HD Tach 3.x Scores/Results/Standings on 09-08-2006 (All contestants)*

REPOSTING TO LAST PAGE... apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 8, 2006)

*HD Tach 3.x Scores/Results/Standings on 09-08-2006 (By Disktype used)*

REPOSTING TO LAST PAGE... apk


----------



## psychomage343 (Sep 9, 2006)

*my scores*

2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0


----------



## munz778 (Sep 9, 2006)

my pleasure, and if you're interested i'd recommend you read through this post from storagereview

it's a very informative thread which discusses the new 7200.10 drives (using perpendicular recording technology) being used by seagate, plenty of benches. (it was my primary source of information on these drives when purchasing) they primarily use HD Tach and HD Tune for benchmarking. a few users complained about disk noise/seek noise but i've had no problems with my pair. hope this helps.


----------



## _33 (Sep 9, 2006)

Alec§taar, I have found little injustice in these tables, as it seems you have taken most people's LONG tests, but mine you have taken the short test (first image) which has yelded less average sequential read value.


----------



## munz778 (Sep 10, 2006)

_33 i'm curious how you get over 300MB/s burst rate when your drives are in SATA-150 mode? i've also got 2x7200.10's so it must be something else that's holding me back...what controller are you using?


----------



## Steevo (Sep 10, 2006)

It is a flaw in the software and how it performs calculations and storage caluclations with formatting.


IE

32bit is a 36bit byte in some instances. So if we count the bits and not the bytes then we end up wrong.


A true test would be to time a load from different disk subsystems on the same platform on clean installs.


----------



## randomperson21 (Sep 10, 2006)

Heres me scores! been using hdtach for a long time, nice program.

2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150). NForce4 Raid on an ECS NForce4-A939 board.

I think i can hold my own on some of those numbers........








i want to say a big thankyou to alecsstar for all of his work on this benchmark stuff. With both the Sciencemark benchies and this, he's been great.

Thank you!


----------



## _33 (Sep 10, 2006)

munz778 said:


> _33 i'm curious how you get over 300MB/s burst rate when your drives are in SATA-150 mode? i've also got 2x7200.10's so it must be something else that's holding me back...what controller are you using?



Well I should be in SATA-300 mode.  If I am on SATA-150 then they must be on 2 separate lanes.  None the less, my benchmarks reflect perfectly the performance of those WD drives for my stripe / cluster setting of 64 / 4.  If I were in 16 / 16, let me tell you the figure would have been totally different.

But I should be in SATA-300 

My controller is the very basic Nvidia Nforce 4 RAID controller provided by the motherboard.

EDIT: *3. _33 =  99.5ms/s - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)* is *WRONG* BTW.  That guy Alec does not respect my system specs.  I have 2 x 250GB 16MB SATA 2 Western Digital drives.  You can read that on the left at "System Specs".


----------



## Slater (Sep 10, 2006)

_33 said:


> EDIT: *3. _33 =  99.5ms/s - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)* is *WRONG* BTW.  That guy Alec does not respect my system specs.  I have 2 x 250GB 16MB SATA 2 Western Digital drives.  You can read that on the left at "System Specs".


Chill out man. Alec probably just made a mistake.
Look at how much work he put in the charts

Respect him for that

Of course there will be human error in a human made chart

Just chill out and act mature about it, you care way too much.


----------



## _33 (Sep 10, 2006)

Slater said:


> Chill out man. Alec probably just made a mistake.
> Look at how much work he put in the charts
> 
> Respect him for that
> ...



Chill out dude, huh?  C'mon man...


----------



## Slater (Sep 10, 2006)

I think you need some sleep _33


----------



## _33 (Sep 10, 2006)

Slater said:


> I think you need some sleep _33



nice overclock btw


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 10, 2006)

randomperson21 said:


> i want to say a big thankyou to alecsstar for all of his work on this benchmark stuff. With both the Sciencemark benchies and this, he's been great.
> 
> Thank you!



You're welcome. It's some work, but worth it imo, for helping folks understand what disks (Or, controller combo's + disks) are fastest & in what particular areas of disk related I/O... your test subject systems are ALL of our "guinea pigs" in this one, & we can hopefully all gain a bit out of it in that capacity.

I will be adding your score, & psychomage's today @ some point to the charts (having Sunday A.M. coffee just now, & NEED IT, lol!).

APK

P.S.=> 33, I edited your specs (should be ok now, right?) & the fact you had 2 images 'threw me' is all... this happened on the other tests (AquaMark 3, WinTune97, ScienceMark 2.0, & this one) before, sorry it happened to you (early on when I build the charts is when a mistake will be made - thanks for corrective notes)...

If you can provide me the post # where your photos are, I can also edit the LONG vs. SHORT score figures, or just tell me them in a reply post... apk


----------



## _33 (Sep 10, 2006)

Alec§taar said:


> P.S.=> 33, I edited your specs (should be ok now, right?) & the fact you had 2 images 'threw me' is all... this happened on the other tests (AquaMark 3, WinTune97, ScienceMark 2.0, & this one) before, sorry it happened to you (early on when I build the charts is when a mistake will be made - thanks for corrective notes)...



You are welcome!  It is at post #42.  The one on the left is the short, the one on the right is the long.  But I'll redo them ATM.  Send them here on an EDIT.


OK this is the short test:



This is the long test:


Those are freshly done, minutes ago and I consider them as official on my behalf.


----------



## Slater (Sep 10, 2006)

_33 said:


> nice overclock btw


Thanks man. the board won't let me get higher though


----------



## Lt_JWS (Sep 10, 2006)

2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 10, 2006)

_33 said:


> OK this is the short test:
> 
> This is the long test:
> 
> Those are freshly done, minutes ago and I consider them as official on my behalf.



Since you stated everyone used the LONG test in their photos? I will be using that data from you - it would only be consistent w/ everyone's results... same conditions tested & all that.

APK

P.S.=> psychomage, RandomPerson21, & LtJWS - folks to add today so far... apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 11, 2006)

Redoing these in minutes, sorry for the delay guys... 

Lots to do here on the home front today + family oriented matters!

(So, once I get back from the store? I will do the scores for this test, & the AquaMark 3 scores are done now).

APK

P.S.=> Good to see 3 people take this today/yesterday - puts it into a "respectable light" now imo @ least, with 17-20 takers (as the ScienceMark 2.0, AquaMark 3, & SuperPi tests all have @ least that many in them)... apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 11, 2006)

*HD Tach 3.0 Scores/Standings/Results on 09-10-2006 (ALL CONTESTANTS TOGETHER)*

MOVING TO LAST PAGE WITH 3 NEW SCORES FROM dumuzi, INSTG8R, & PvtCaboose! apk


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 11, 2006)

NO LONGER DOING 2nd chart broken up by disktypes used... apk


----------



## psychomage343 (Sep 11, 2006)

sweet, so far my drives haven't done to poorly


----------



## randomperson21 (Sep 11, 2006)

Thanks alecsstar!

i'm glad i can hold my own on these tests. never below the division line


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Sep 11, 2006)




----------



## dumuzi (Sep 11, 2006)

*4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0*

338.0 MB/s burst
175.3 MB/s average read
cpu utilization: 4%
13.2 ms access


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 11, 2006)

I'll do the new scores onto the charts (need photos though!), tomorrow.



* Busy today on NFL day #1, watching N.Y. Giants take a CLOSE LOSS to the Indianapolis Colts ("battle of the bro's" in Eli vs. Peyton Manning (& their dad Archie rocked when he played imo @ least too)).

APK

P.S.=> 18 people so far... 19 almost, but need photos... apk


----------



## dumuzi (Sep 11, 2006)

*here is my pics, got it a little higher this time.*

http://forums.techpowerup.com/images/smilies/smile.gif



Check out http://www.simplisoftware.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?t=409
some guys are getting twice the scores any of us are.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Sep 11, 2006)

well done dumuzi,someone finally knocked me off the top on the burst score,it did take a 4 disc raid 0 array to do it tho'.lol.my two little 80's did very well tho'

very nice scores.


----------



## giorgos th. (Sep 11, 2006)

pretty stable graph there.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 11, 2006)

My Seagate 7200.10 320G


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 11, 2006)

*HD Tach 3.0x TechPower Forums Scores/Standings/Results on 09-11-2006*

*=========================================
(ACCESS/SEEK DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar* =*8.8ms* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*2. randomperson21* =*12.6ms* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

*3. giorgos th* =*12.8ms* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*4. tigger69* = *12.9ms* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*4. steevo* =*12.9ms* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*5. dumuzi* =*13.1ms* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*6. munz778* =*13.2ms* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*6. zekrahminator* = *13.2ms* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*6. _33* = * 13.2ms* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*7. INSTG8R* = * 13.4ms* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*8. PVTCaboose1337* =*13.5ms* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*9. psychomage343* =*13.6ms* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*9. YiK* = *13.6ms* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*9. cdawall* =*13.6ms* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*10. YiK* =*13.9ms* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*11. mikelopez* =*14ms* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*12. Lt JWS* =*14.2ms* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*13. regan1985* =*15.3ms* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*14. pt* = *17.1ms* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*15. Wolverine* =*17.6ms* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL SEEK/ACCESS DATA (20 members):* 13.63ms
**************************************************



*=========================================
(CPU USAGE DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar*=*0% * - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*1. YiK* =*0%* - (WD 80GB IDE)

*1. Wolverine* =*0%* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*2. INSTG8R* = * 2%* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*2. mikelopez* =*2%* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*2. giorgos th* =*2%* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*2. regan1985* =*2%* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*2. _33* = * 2%* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*2. YiK* =*2%* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*2. cdawall* =*2%* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*3. dumuzi* =*3%* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*3. pt* = *3%* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*3. tigger69* = *3%* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*4. steevo* =*4%* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*5. Lt JWS* =*5%* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*5. munz778* =*5%* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*6. randomperson21* =*6%* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

*7. psychomage343* =*7%* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*7. PVTCaboose1337* =*7%* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*8. zekrahminator* = *11%* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL CPU USE DATA (20 members):* 3.40%
**************************************************



*=========================================
(READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. dumuzi* =*345mb/s* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*2. tigger69* = * 323.2mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*3. _33* = *302.5mb/s* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*4. Lt JWS* =*278.9mb/s* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*5. mikelopez* =* 258.6mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*6. INSTG8R* = * 241.6mb/s* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*7. Wolverine* =*224.5mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*8. psychomage343* =*212.2mb/s* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*9. munz778* =*198.2mb/s* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*10. randomperson21* =*193.8mb/s* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*11. PVTCaboose1337* =*171mb/s* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*12. Alec§taar* =* 167.1mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*13. giorgos th* =* 133.8mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*14. regan1985* =*122.9mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*15. steevo* =* 121.4mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*16. zekrahminator* =*110.7mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*17. YiK* =* 104.5mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*18. YiK* = * 94.6mb/s* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*19. cdawall* =* 91.8mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*20. pt* = * 84.6mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL READ DATA (20 members):* 189.05mb/s
**************************************************



*=========================================
 (AVG READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. dumuzi* =*176.8mb/s* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*2. munz778* =*121.8mb/s* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*3. psychomage343* =*100.2mb/s* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*4. steevo* =*99.8mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*5. _33* = * 99.5ms/s* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*6. tigger69* = *97.6mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*7. Lt JWS* =*95.5mb/s* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*8. randomperson21* =*92.3mb/s* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*9. Alec§taar* =*65.6mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*10. INSTG8R* = * 65.3mb/s* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*10. mikelopez* =*65.3mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*11. giorgos th* =*61.7mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*12. Wolverine* =*56mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*13. zekrahminator* = *55.2mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*14. PVTCaboose1337* =*52.5mb/s* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*15. regan1985* =*52.2mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*16. YiK* =*51.8mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*17. pt* = *49.4mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*18. YiK* = *49ms/s* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*19. cdawall* =*31.7mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL AVGREAD DATA (20 members):* 76.96mb/s
**************************************************



APK

P.S.=> DONE! apk


----------



## Slater (Sep 11, 2006)

"    * 2. _33 =  2% - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)"
I think you forgot to fix that again


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 11, 2006)

Slater said:


> "    * 2. _33 =  2% - (Seagate Barracuda 160gb sata II,set sata I)"
> I think you forgot to fix that again



It's clean now!

(OR, should be, & not just for _33 either - let me know, however, if/where it is not, as it is only minutes to fix all things now with only doing the "ALL" chart (instead of breaking them out by disktype used groups as I had before)).

On _33:

I used the man's profile data for his disktype... should be ok, assuming he has that "up-to-date" in his profile.



* Anyhow/anyways - We're "getting there" imo, w/ 20 test takers in the mix (as many as the AquaMark 3 competition/test no less which surprises me to some extent considering gaming performance seems "paramount" here & disks have not a HELL of a lot of play in that other than init. load & level changes imo @ least).

Plus, now we have TONS of diff. kinds of disk controller & RAID array setups now (even a Quad Disk RAID 0 array now in dumuzi's setup) in the mixture here.

APK


----------



## Steevo (Sep 11, 2006)

You forgot our server here, I posted a pic.


----------



## Alec§taar (Sep 12, 2006)

Steevo said:


> You forgot our server here, I posted a pic.



Sorry about that & the delay: Do you know what post # it was by any chance?

Thanks - I'll update the charts once more once I get that...

APK

P.S.=> Have to get this & the updates on the AquaMark 3 test also... apk


----------



## psychomage343 (Sep 17, 2006)

*did another run, little better results*

i did another run with 2x200gig sata1 in raid 0, same wd200le model's i had for the first run but changed the raid cluster size a bit.  I'm trying to stay in the running here lol


----------



## psychomage343 (Sep 17, 2006)

*did another run, little better results*

i did another run with 2x200gig sata1 in raid 0, same wd200le model's i had for the first run but changed the raid cluster size a bit.  I'm trying to stay in the running here lol.


----------



## Canuto (Sep 17, 2006)

Hi folks 
Here's my score...






Good or bad?


----------



## psychomage343 (Sep 17, 2006)

idk, better then mine lol


----------



## pt (Sep 17, 2006)

*UPDATED*​
*=========================================
(ACCESS/SEEK DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar* =*8.8ms* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*2. randomperson21* =*12.6ms* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

*3. giorgos th* =*12.8ms* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*4. tigger69* = *12.9ms* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*4. steevo* =*12.9ms* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*5. dumuzi* =*13.1ms* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*6. munz778* =*13.2ms* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*6. zekrahminator* = *13.2ms* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*6. _33* = * 13.2ms* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*7. INSTG8R* = * 13.4ms* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*7. psychomage343* =*13.4ms* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*8. PVTCaboose1337* =*13.5ms* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*9. YiK* = *13.6ms* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*9. cdawall* =*13.6ms* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*10. YiK* =*13.9ms* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*11. mikelopez* =*14ms* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*12. Lt JWS* =*14.2ms* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*13. regan1985* =*15.3ms* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*13. Canuto* =*15.3ms* - Maxtor 6V200, 200gb sata1

*14. pt* = *17.1ms* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*15. Wolverine* =*17.6ms* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL SEEK/ACCESS DATA (20 members):* 13.63ms
**************************************************



*=========================================
(CPU USAGE DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. Alec§taar*=*0% * - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*1. YiK* =*0%* - (WD 80GB IDE)

*1. Wolverine* =*0%* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*1. Canuto* =*0%* - Maxtor 6V200, 200gb sata1

*2. INSTG8R* = * 2%* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*2. mikelopez* =*2%* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*2. giorgos th* =*2%* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*2. regan1985* =*2%* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*2. _33* = * 2%* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*2. YiK* =*2%* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*2. cdawall* =*2%* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*2. psychomage343* =*2%* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*3. dumuzi* =*3%* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*3. pt* = *3%* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*3. tigger69* = *3%* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*4. steevo* =*4%* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*5. Lt JWS* =*5%* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*5. munz778* =*5%* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*6. randomperson21* =*6%* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))

*7. PVTCaboose1337* =*7%* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*8. zekrahminator* = *11%* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL CPU USE DATA (20 members):* 3.40%
**************************************************



*=========================================
(READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. dumuzi* =*345mb/s* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*2. tigger69* = * 323.2mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*3. _33* = *302.5mb/s* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*4. Lt JWS* =*278.9mb/s* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*5. mikelopez* =* 258.6mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*6. INSTG8R* = * 241.6mb/s* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*7. Wolverine* =*224.5mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*8. Canuto* =*214.3mb/s* - (Maxtor 6V200, 200gb sata1)

*9. psychomage343* =*211.8mb/s* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*10. munz778* =*198.2mb/s* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*11. randomperson21* =*193.8mb/s* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*12. PVTCaboose1337* =*171mb/s* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*13. Alec§taar* =* 167.1mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*14. giorgos th* =* 133.8mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*15. regan1985* =*122.9mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*16. steevo* =* 121.4mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*17. zekrahminator* =*110.7mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*18. YiK* =* 104.5mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*19. YiK* = * 94.6mb/s* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*20. cdawall* =* 91.8mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)

*21. pt* = * 84.6mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL READ DATA (20 members):* 189.05mb/s
**************************************************



*=========================================
 (AVG READ DATA) "HDTACH 3 SCORE CHART" complete list 09-11-2006
=========================================*

*1. dumuzi* =*176.8mb/s* - (4X 320GB Seagate RAID 0 - QuadDisk Stripe RAID 0 Array)

*2. munz778* =*121.8mb/s* - (2x320GB RAID-0 Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II (in SATA-150 mode))

*3. psychomage343* =*100.5mb/s* - (2x200gig sata1 wester digitall model wd200, in raid0)

*4. steevo* =*99.8mb/s* - (2xMaxtor 300gb sataII raid 0 (raid0 silicon 3114 controller))

*5. _33* = * 99.5ms/s* - (WD 250GB 16M SATA2 X 2 in RAID0 + 80 GB WD)

*6. tigger69* = *97.6mb/s* - (2x hitachi 80gb sataII raid 0(ich7r))

*7. Lt JWS* =*95.5mb/s* - (2xWD 80gig SATA2 RAID 0)

*8. randomperson21* =*92.3mb/s* - (2x160GB SATA I Seagate Barracudas in Raid0 (7200.7 and a 7200.9 set at sata150))
-----------AVG SCORE DIVISION LINE-----------

*9. Alec§taar* =*65.6mb/s* - (2xWD "Raptor 'X'" RAID 0 (Promise Caching 128mb ECC RAM + onboard CPU Controller))

*10. INSTG8R* = * 65.3mb/s* - (Seagate 7200.10)

*10. mikelopez* =*65.3mb/s* - (250GB seagate barracuda 7200.10 sata2)

*11. giorgos th* =*61.7mb/s* - (Seagate barracuda 160gb sata II,set as sata I)

*12. Canuto* =*58.7mb/s* - (Maxtor 6V200, 200gb sata1)

*13. Wolverine* =*56mb/s* - (Hitachi 250GB SATA2)

*14. zekrahminator* = *55.2mb/s* - (WD 160GB sata hdd)

*15. PVTCaboose1337* =*52.5mb/s* - (Western Digital 250 GB SATA (7200 RPM))

*16. regan1985* =*52.2mb/s* - (Maxtor Duel SATA2)

*17. YiK* =*51.8mb/s* - (Maxtor 80GB IDE)

*18. pt* = *49.4mb/s* - (40GB IDE seagate barracuda)

*19. YiK* = *49ms/s* -  (WD 80GB IDE)

*20. cdawall* =*31.7mb/s* - (Maxtor ATA133 EIDE)
**************************************************
*AVERAGE ALL AVGREAD DATA (20 members):* 76.96mb/s
**************************************************


----------



## cdawall (Sep 17, 2006)

ha who has the fastest usb drive here are mine ones a jumpdrive sport 512mb the other a jumpdrive sport 128mb
oops these were the quick test gotta fix that 
ha lool made no diff whatsoever between the long/short ran them both twice to make sure 100% identicl


----------



## pt (Sep 17, 2006)

cdawall said:


> ha who has the fastest usb drive here are mine ones a jumpdrive sport 512mb the other a jumpdrive sport 128mb
> oops these were the quick test gotta fix that
> ha lool made no diff whatsoever between the long/short ran them both twice to make sure 100% identicl



start a new thread, i want to see some results


----------



## cdawall (Sep 17, 2006)

pt said:


> start a new thread, i want to see some results



ok will do


----------



## _33 (Sep 17, 2006)

cdawall said:


> ok will do



USB2 can't go faster than 35 mb/s...  Useless thread it would be :shadedshu


----------



## pt (Sep 17, 2006)

_33 said:


> USB2 can't go faster than 35 mb/s...  Useless thread it would be :shadedshu



there are some usb faster than others


----------



## _33 (Sep 17, 2006)

pt said:


> there are some usb faster than others



Yes, but the theoretical limit [of 35mb] is easily achieved, which would make this thread boring.  But if you want to do it, I can't force you otherwize.  You are a man and you know what to do.  But, I will absolutely alienate your thread as it would pose a threat to the other [as if not more] boring benchmark threads and of course learning that your USB2 drive runs ## MB faster than another wouldn't shed any added light from the myriad of qualified reviews of USB2 storage units that are found on the net, andn possibly even on TPU.

I will respect your choice.

Actually it would show that some USB2 drives, just like yours, don't exploit the full USB2 bandwidth.  Meaning, that they are mostly half efficient storage units.  Actually it would be interesting.  Go for it.  If you have more than 3 benches, I'll congradulate you personally.

Note:  How about Firewire storage units?


----------



## pt (Sep 17, 2006)

_33 said:


> Note:  How about Firewire storage units?



i don't have anything that uses fireware

But if you want to do it, I can't force you otherwize. You are a man and you know what to do. But, I will absolutely alienate your thread as it would pose a threat to the other [as if not more] boring benchmark threads and of course learning that your *firewire* drive runs ## MB faster than another wouldn't shed any added light from the myriad of qualified reviews of *firewire* storage units that are found on the net, and possibly even on TPU.

I will respect your choice.

 , i just love the copy button


----------



## cdawall (Sep 18, 2006)

pt said:


> i don't have anything that uses fireware
> 
> But if you want to do it, I can't force you otherwize. You are a man and you know what to do. But, I will absolutely alienate your thread as it would pose a threat to the other [as if not more] boring benchmark threads and of course learning that your *firewire* drive runs ## MB faster than another wouldn't shed any added light from the myriad of qualified reviews of *firewire* storage units that are found on the net, and possibly even on TPU.
> 
> ...



ill put both in the same thread  lets see who is faster?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 1, 2006)

new test result with 16k stripe-


----------



## _33 (Oct 1, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> new test result with 16k stripe-



tHAT cpu utilization seems to have rizen.  Or maybe your system was busy doing other stuf while test was running.  Congratz for a 16K stripe size!  Now, only if you could have your OS on 16K clusters, then you'd have the perfect Windows install IMO.

Anyone ever run this test in safemode see if it's more accurate?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Oct 1, 2006)

i think it was doing something in the backgeound actually,i was in the middle of getting all my shit back on,i also had x-fire on talking to someone.

it is faster with a 16k stripe tho'.


----------



## Alec§taar (Oct 1, 2006)

tigger69 said:


> it is faster with a 16k stripe tho'.



It is, & why I use it... 

Fact is:  I *think*, iirc, I got wind of that as a pretty good "optimal" size for doing this stuff @ the RAID controller level on an end-user desktop doing work I do (small file I/O based largely, compilers & such), years ago online, & it stuck w/ me when I had to make my RAID 'stripesize' decision... 

(My brains' a serious 'junkyard' on PC trivia, & I can't recall where or when I got good ideas from others from etc. online. Many years on forums on the web & also before it on IRC, & before that on BBS systems, prior to wide WWW usage).

Anyhow, I remembered it, & then I too, applied it as I stated to you in the other thread!

(I just checked it on reboot while getting info. for Ketxxx & blixxx1981 (he's o/c'ing a mobo that is almost just like mine, in another thread) in fact from my BIOS & stopped during boot to take a peek @ my Promise Technology RAID 128mb ECC RAM onboard + Intel "Super I/O" cpu bearing caching controller here also).

* WELL, it's all that, or I just got dead up lucky! 

(lol... & I'll take it either way...)

APK


----------



## strick94u (Oct 20, 2006)

Well I need a screen capture program but heres a neat trick/ Nikon D-100 20mm 30/f4.5
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 so anybody know of a good screen capture program?
cpu 4% 
Random acess 13.6 ms
ave read 98.3 mbs
burst 206.2 
on board nvidia raid controller raid 0 4 stripe  
4 320 8mb cache


----------



## zekrahminator (Oct 20, 2006)

Screenshots made easy- the printscrn button, then Ctrl-V (or paste, in technical terms) in mspaint, then save as a .png (generally smaller then other formats for 2D screenies, for 3D screenies save as jpeg).


----------



## strick94u (Oct 20, 2006)

zekrahminator said:


> Screenshots made easy- the printscrn button, then Ctrl-V (or paste, in technical terms) in mspaint, then save as a .png (generally smaller then other formats for 2D screenies, for 3D screenies save as jpeg).



Well thats why I told mom I wanted to date outside the family. who the hell would have thought that a windows 3.11 trick would still work after all these years worse yet how the heck did I forget about that :shadedshu 
Thanks zekrahminator

I do still have the expensive outdated camera too


----------



## strick94u (Oct 21, 2006)

Ok this is my old server (dude its a Dell) SC500 p3 1000 with 1 gig ecc sdram and 2x maxtor ide 80 gigs running on a tx2000 promise pci-x ide raid card HEHE yes I know its a dog but check it out


----------



## giorgos th. (Oct 22, 2006)

Working as sata II now on ICH8.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 12, 2007)

Long Test Results Ran twice for confirmation


----------



## technicks (Jan 13, 2007)

Crappy Maxtor 250 GB


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jan 13, 2007)

new one with the same two hitachi 80's on raid 0 on ich8r as fast as 4x320 raid 0







and my new 250gb 8mb cache samsung spinpoint(single) its pretty fast


----------



## Canuto (Jan 13, 2007)

New HDD 






It's a Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 Sata-2 200GB

PS-> Don't erase the entry of my old one just put Canuto#1 and Canuto#2 plz.


----------



## BoOsTed SS (Jan 14, 2007)

2 x 250 gb Maxtor 6V250F0 sataII with intel 82801GR/GH SATA RAID CONTROLLER


----------



## sno.lcn (Jan 14, 2007)




----------



## jwaldick (Mar 5, 2007)

Maxtor 80gb Sata X2 RAID 0
Very cheap, crazy proformance!


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 6, 2007)

Bumpage

Sorry Alec or PT(whoevers had been maintaining it) I just noticed that some new benches have been posted(hmm my last one as well actually now that I look thru it, tho Im still in the list I think that may be a "slightly" better bench)

Edit: Meh might as well post a fresh one now that this HDD is pretty full


----------



## pt (Mar 6, 2007)

well, it's me, but since thios thread was kinda dead i leave it, will update next weekend


----------



## curt (Mar 6, 2007)

*hey*

heres my post

not to shabby for 2x maxtor ata133 7200rpm 80gig 2mb cash in raid 0

i wana know what my setup could do with 2 Barracuda 7200.10 80 GB - ST380815AS 

with 2 of thows should be nice speeds


----------



## sampofin (Mar 6, 2007)

winner


----------



## Alec§taar (Mar 6, 2007)

sampofin said:


> winner



Amazing score man... outright amazing!



* What technology & methods were employed (mainly the type of controller you used that the disks (their type also please) ride on as well as formatting methods employed (stripe size if special controller) + formatted filesystem type plus cluster/sector size used please, just for everyone's reference!)

Thanks & GREAT score... 417++ on burst, & 127 almost on avg. read (approaches my BURST RATE NO LESS), wow!

APK


----------



## ktr (Mar 6, 2007)

sampofin said:


> winner



That's is what you call 4x 7200.10 hdd's in action!


----------



## regan1985 (Mar 6, 2007)

i would have thought x4 7200 would have done better, ive seen 2x7200 drives get those kind of results, i wonder if you went down to 3 drives if your results would change. what you need its a good controler

wish i had x4 drives


----------



## ktr (Mar 6, 2007)

regan1985 said:


> i would have thought x4 7200 would have done better, ive seen 2x7200 drives get those kind of results, i wonder if you went down to 3 drives if your results would change. what you need its a good controler
> 
> wish i had x4 drives



he is using the one built in to his board, but if he uses a sata2 raid card with a built in cache (128-256mb, what APK has), you talking about some speed.


----------



## BLJ (Mar 19, 2007)

sampofin said:


> winner



have a look at my scores (down there).

anyway, the reason i've registered is: Which Bios & Driver Version are you using?
my burst-speed is kinda slow; had ~360MB/s with 4x DiamondMax on NF3 Board, 2 years ago!

and, i'm looking for a benchmark of an 80GB 7200.10.


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 19, 2007)

wow, nobody has posted in here in a while, but o' well


----------



## Kursah (Jul 19, 2007)

Just had to show off one more time didn't ya! LoL! Nice scores man! 

My HDD average is approx 52-54MB/sec, burst is somewhere in the 200's I think, I don't quite recall. LoL, pales in comparison to your setup!


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 19, 2007)

yup, i did


----------



## cdawall (Jul 19, 2007)

hey freaksav were in cypress you live im moving off cypress rosehill in early Aug.


----------



## crazyfinx (Oct 6, 2007)

I should be third overall I think

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=340216&postcount=109


----------



## crazyfinx (Oct 6, 2007)

3x 7200.10 300 Seagates


----------



## crazyfinx (Oct 6, 2007)

I should be first, burnt everyone


----------

