Page 1 of 1
which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:10 am
by skier
is a slave drive with nothing on it(just the NTFS format is taking 4% up) supposed to be significantly faster than the drive with the OS on it(and 60+% full)
im disturbed at my hd tach results(Raptor(61%):136MB/s Barracuda(4%):230MB/s)
(basically am i just retarded for getting a SATA 150 drive?)
Re: which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:20 am
by DMB2000uk
230MB/s from a single drive?
I mean, you'd expect faster speeds because it's empty and as such is reading from the fastest part of the drive, but not to those kind of speeds.
Is this speed sustained (even just for say 10% of the drive) or is it a burst speed?
Dan
Re: which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:50 am
by hnzw_rui
Do the tests again. Something probably just went wrong during the first test. 230MB/s for sustained is unusually high and probably not a true measure.
Re: which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:02 pm
by skier
i ran both hdtach tests("8M and 32M zones"), and they both resulted in 230-231MB/s for the barracuda, and 136MB/s for the raptor, i'll upload the screenshots when i get back to my dorm, and run it again, since i defragged the Raptor
Re: which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:25 pm
by skier
im currently throwing files on the barracuda(the largest single file on my Raptor is a TF2 content game file at 2.4GB) i have 8 folders with 4 copies of the content file in each, i'll copy the 8 folders AGAIN, then run hd tach
(i also just ran it, at 228MB/s)
Re: which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:40 pm
by skier
OH i deff wasnt looking closely, it is the burst speed
Re: which should be faster?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:04 pm
by Apoptosis
that makes more sense... post up a screen shot of the results next time ;)