Does anyone know why PCMark05 would give bizarrely low numbers for any disk-related
test under XP 32bit? I tried upgrading to SP3 (was SP2) but still get crazy numbers. All other
tests work fine, but anything disk-related and results such as 0.002MB/sec are given, even
though the time taken for the tests, and all other tests (HDTach, Sandra, etc.) suggest the
disks are working just fine (normal max sustained speed is around 100MB/sec). I'm using
all U320 SCSI, 147GB 15K (Maxtor Atlas 15K II), both PCIX and PCIe U320 cards, and it
happens no matter what disk I use, or what card the disk is connected to. I was hoping to
try the test using hw vs. sw RAID, but so far there's no point trying as long as the disk
tests are doing a wobbly.
Note that I did try searching toms before posting, but I always get zero results no matter what
search parameters I use (search function broken?). Ideally I'd post to the futuremark forums,
but for reasons unknown I'm unable to post even though I have an account, results in the ORB, etc.
I upgraded my system back in May to a new mbd/gfx and would really like to know how it compares
to the setup I had before. I can run 3DMark* just fine, but PCMark05 is being a pain.
More about :pcmark05 acting wierd pro daft disk results
It's probably because PCMark05 wasn't designed to take Ultra 320 SCSI into account... just throwing it out there, but that does seem to be the most likely explanation. Check to see if there is an update that will correct the discrepency.
SCSI is so rarely used except in the workstation / server environment that most consumer benchmark programs probably won't factor it in. SATA and Serial-attached SCSI will render SCSI obsolete soon unless there's some huge breakthrough.
No, it's not that. The tests worked perfectly ok on my old Dell Precision 650 which
had U320 native, and there are actually quite a few hobbyists using SCSI for
faster RAID setups. Done all the updates. Hmm, was going to reference my Dell 650
results, but I can't access the Futuremark ORB atm, just times out.
SATA doesn't have decent access times yet, and SAS is too expensive. It's very
easy to get hold of 2nd-hand SCSI at good prices, eg. I won a 300GB 10K
SCSI disk recently for just $60.
Oh, and 2nd-hand 10K SATA is basically non-existent. You obviously get
good raw storage capacity with SATA, but often at the expense of quality (eg.
be wary of the Seagate 300GB model that does not have 'N' at the end of the
part number; they don't last very long in RAID setups). I'll get some SATA stuff
next year for raw storage, but I'll continue using SCSI for performance RAID as
it's so cheap 2nd-hand (147GB 15K SCSI still under warranty is cheaper and
faster than a 10K SATA which is pretty much only available new).
But no, it's nothing to do with SCSI not being supported. That aspect of the
storage should be transparent anyway, otherwise it really would be evidence
of how garbage Windows is.