Bad performace with black caviar

Hello to everyone, my problem is that my hdd a, Black Caviar sata 2 500 gb, is not performing like it should, ¿ why? because of bad results with all bechmarks (hdtune, hdtach, etc.) that I have tried, here a picture of an example:



As you can see, can't exceed the speed of reading and writing more than the 80 mb / s on average, which is quite low, should be around 110 mb /s.

The disk is connected to the gsata controller (master), and it is defragmented.

My rig:

I7 920 @ 3.8
6 gb ram corsair
Gigabyte ex58 ud3r Bios: f11

pd: For some reason the disk is being recognized as a scsi

Pic


¿Somebody knows any solution to my problem?

In advance thank you very much for your help.

Greetings
5 answers Last reply
More about performace black caviar
  1. It's suppose to use the scsi protocols. That's normal.
    I highly doubt the average speed is suppose to be 110MB/s.

    rallyart said:
    Hello to everyone, my problem is that my hdd a, Black Caviar sata 2 500 gb, is not performing like it should, ¿ why? because of bad results with all bechmarks (hdtune, hdtach, etc.) that I have tried, here a picture of an example:

    http://d.imagehost.org/0088/hdd_bench.jpg

    As you can see, can't exceed the speed of reading and writing more than the 80 mb / s on average, which is quite low, should be around 110 mb /s.

    The disk is connected to the gsata controller (master), and it is defragmented.

    My rig:

    I7 920 @ 3.8
    6 gb ram corsair
    Gigabyte ex58 ud3r Bios: f11

    pd: For some reason the disk is being recognized as a scsi

    Pic
    http://b.imagehost.org/0756/scsi.jpg

    ¿Somebody knows any solution to my problem?

    In advance thank you very much for your help.

    Greetings
  2. Hi, thanks for your answer, but you are saying that these speed are normal?

    'cause a friend of mine, about one month ago bought the same model but sata 3, but working on Sata II on his MB (gigabyte 770t), and have higher speeds, in fact that was the main reason for me to try this benchmark (ATTO disk)

    Here is the pic of his results:




    And again thanks and salutes.

    pd: sorry about my english but its not my native language.
  3. That is actualy fine. The 1TB version only gets an av of 85MB

    http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/3.5-hard-drive-charts/Average-Read-Transfer-Performance,Marque_fbrandx46,658.html

    The image shows transfere rates for given file sizes, if max/av/min read throughput is what you want, try HDTach, very simple.

    http://www.simplisoftware.com/Public/index.php?request=HdTach
  4. Here is an old review of the 1TB Black, which should be pretty similar to the 500GB: http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2404&page=2

    The average is in the 80's. What you are seeing different in your friends SATA III version is the platter size. It is based off of one 500GB platter and your is two 250GB platters which accounts for the speed difference for the most part (since both ran on a SATA II connection). IMO
  5. 0k, thank you very much for your replies, I'm more relaxed now that I know is normal.
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives Caviar Storage