Using data from the Tom's Hardware Guide website, I constructed a performance comparison of these two drives:
Western Digital Raptor (WD1500AD)
Interface: SATA/150
Capacity: 150GB
Cache: 16MB
RPM: 10,000
Seagate Cheetah 15K.5 (ST3300655SS)
Interface: SAS
Capacity: 300GB
Cache: 16MB
RPM: 15,000Across a range of benchmarks, the Cheetah outperforms the Raptor by:
Random Access Time (h2benchw 3.6): 18%
Average Read Transfer Performance (h2benchw 3.6): 46%
Average Write Transfer Performance (h2benchw 3.6): 69%
Windows XP Startup Performance (PCMark05): 42%
File Writing Performance (PCMark05): 35%
Workstation I/O Benchmark Pattern (IOMeter 2003.05.10): 84%My question: Why, then, is the Cheetah listed as significantly underperforming the Raptor on the Office DriveMark 2006 and the High-End DriveMark 2006 benchmarks reported on the StorageReview website (see Drive Performance Resource Center)?
All insights are most welcome.
Western Digital Raptor (WD1500AD)
Interface: SATA/150
Capacity: 150GB
Cache: 16MB
RPM: 10,000
Seagate Cheetah 15K.5 (ST3300655SS)
Interface: SAS
Capacity: 300GB
Cache: 16MB
RPM: 15,000Across a range of benchmarks, the Cheetah outperforms the Raptor by:
Random Access Time (h2benchw 3.6): 18%
Average Read Transfer Performance (h2benchw 3.6): 46%
Average Write Transfer Performance (h2benchw 3.6): 69%
Windows XP Startup Performance (PCMark05): 42%
File Writing Performance (PCMark05): 35%
Workstation I/O Benchmark Pattern (IOMeter 2003.05.10): 84%My question: Why, then, is the Cheetah listed as significantly underperforming the Raptor on the Office DriveMark 2006 and the High-End DriveMark 2006 benchmarks reported on the StorageReview website (see Drive Performance Resource Center)?
All insights are most welcome.