HD Tach + RAID0 Raptor 1500's in Windows Vista Ultimate

Hard Drives, Optical Drives, USB keys, Flash memory. Need help with or have experiences with a storage device? Share it in here!
Locked
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:
Contact Apoptosis

HD Tach + RAID0 Raptor 1500's in Windows Vista Ultimate

Post by Apoptosis »

After writing the how to install Vista Ultimate 32-bit article a number of people have asked me how disk performance is and if I could run HD Tach version 3.0.1.0 in Vista.

Trying to install HD Tach in Vista will give you an error like this:

Image

If you try to run the program in Compatibility mode for Windows XP SP2 as an administrator it will work.

This is how disk performance looks with HD Tach on Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit with a pair of Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drives in RAID0 with the Intel controller on the Intel D975XBX Bad Axe motherboard.

Image

The burst speed is an impresive 243.7MB/s with the average read speed being 131.0 MB/Sec. These drives replaced my aging WD2500 hard drive that I wasn't running in RAID. The best it could get was a 168MB/s burst speed and 55.5 MB/Sec average read speed on Windows XP Pro.
Top
User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:
Contact Dragon_Cooler

Post by Dragon_Cooler »

dang i am going to see how well my one WD raptor X will do.
Image
Top
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:
Contact Apoptosis

Post by Apoptosis »

Dragon_Cooler wrote:dang i am going to see how well my one WD raptor X will do.
I'd be interested in seeing that also ;)
Top
snowking03
Legit Aficionado
Legit Aficionado
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Cal Poly

Post by snowking03 »

That's rather impressive, do you have an XP benchmark using the same drives in the same configuration?
Rigs:
AMD 3400+ Claw, DFI NF3 250GB, 1GB XMS3200 2-2-2-5, 9800 Pro, 2x80GB WD HDD Raid0, 320GB External
Dodge Stealth R/T Twin Turbo, Test Pipe, WB02, Boost controller, EGR delete, Autometer Cobalts, etc.
Top
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:
Contact Apoptosis

Post by Apoptosis »

Nope... Didn't feel like doing anything like that... As I mentioned in the article these were NOT review samples and are my personal hard drives... I just ran this benchmark because a couple readers wanted to see the numbers.
Top
User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:
Contact Dragon_Cooler

Post by Dragon_Cooler »

something is wrong because my WD500 with 16mb cache got a better score than my raptor x.

WD500: 191.3MB/s
Raptor x: 132.6

i didnt stop any programs or anything like most people would do when they run 3dmark, just ran it like normal on quick. !?!?!!??! this is wierd, what oh what could it be???

I always have a huge down spike right at 75GB
Image
Top
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:
Contact Apoptosis

Post by Apoptosis »

strange... I ran my scores with AIM and a few other applications like F@H, IE and FF open and still got the scores I did.

What scores are you listing? I can't tell if those are the burst speed or average read scores.
Top
User avatar
kenc51
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 5167
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Contact:
Contact kenc51

Post by kenc51 »

Dragon_Cooler wrote:something is wrong because my WD500 with 16mb cache got a better score than my raptor x.

WD500: 191.3MB/s
Raptor x: 132.6

i didnt stop any programs or anything like most people would do when they run 3dmark, just ran it like normal on quick. !?!?!!??! this is wierd, what oh what could it be???

I always have a huge down spike right at 75GB
The RaptorX doesn't support SATA300, the WD500 does! That's the burst rate your comparing. Compare the sustained mb/s and access times.
Top
User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:
Contact Dragon_Cooler

Post by Dragon_Cooler »

random access: 10.2
average read: 77

where is sustained?
Image
Top
User avatar
kenc51
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 5167
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Contact:
Contact kenc51

Post by kenc51 »

Dragon_Cooler wrote:random access: 10.2
average read: 77

where is sustained?
avg read would be the same as sustained, some progs call it different things :rolleyes:
Top
User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:
Contact Dragon_Cooler

Post by Dragon_Cooler »

kenc51 wrote:
Dragon_Cooler wrote:random access: 10.2
average read: 77

where is sustained?
avg read would be the same as sustained, some progs call it different things :rolleyes:
well i am guessing that is pretty good?
Image
Top
User avatar
Kougar
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Kougar »

Fairly good, yes. :)

Seagate 320gb 16mb cache 7200.10 model

XP
Random Access Time 13.5ms
Average Read 64.3mb/s
Burst Speed 132.53mb/s

RAID 0 under XP
Random Access Time 14ms
Average Read 113.87mb/s
Burst Speed 1502.4mb/s. :shock:

Going by y'alls numbers I think 16mb of cache on both drives might have futzed up HD Tach, as I can't explain that Burst Speed number. That was the average of three runs and was fairly consistent though. Was using a Jmicron RAID controller on a DS3.
Core i7 920 @ 4.2GHz 1.36v
Gigabyte GA-X58-UD5
Under Water
Top
User avatar
Dragon_Cooler
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:17 am
Location: DFW Texas
Contact:
Contact Dragon_Cooler

Post by Dragon_Cooler »

why is a raptor slower than that!????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
im confused!!! LOOLOLOL :rolleyes:
Image
Top
Locked

Return to “Storage”