benchmark to see if Im at ATA100??

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Anyone know of a way to tell if I'm really running at ATA 100? I don't notice any diff between ATA66 and I have it set up on a new KT7-A Raid with the appropriate drivers that came with it. I have a 40 gig ATA66 (boot drive) and just got a 30G ATA 100 both are 7200RPM. Wondered if I should swith everything and boot off the 30 g for better performance or more trouble that it's worth since I would lose the registry and have to reinstall everything???
 
B

Bubba

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,944
0
19,780
I would like the same thing. I just got an ATA100 7200RPM Maxtor drive on the A7V promise controller to replace my ATA66 5400RPM drive.
I don't really notice any difference.
I ran Sandra and my score when from 16000 to ~20000 as a result of the upgrade.
What should an ATA100 7200 hard drive score be?
Thanks.
 
N

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,355
53
19,870
use hd tach vers 2.61 for a decent benchmark. The newer drive may be slighlty faster, although this will not be do to the ata 100 vs ata 66 difference. Even the fastest drives today do not break the transfer limits of the ata66 controller. If you really want to increase your performance create a partition on the fastest drive of approx 500 meg to 1 gig. Install this drive on the secondary master ( assuming your drive with your OS is on the primary master). then go inot device manager and uncheck the " let windows manage your virtual memory to " let me spcify my own virtual memory settings" then allocate this to the partition you just created on the fastest drive.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
G

Guest

Guest
hd tach is cool, sisoft sandra's system benchmark program is a good all-around benchmark that shows how your components compare to other systems. A normal ata66 disk gets about 13000 points in their hard disk benchmark, where my ata100 disk scored about 20000. I'm waiting til the second disk comes in so I can raid0, and get 40000ish =).

<font color=red>=P
 
N

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,355
53
19,870
LOL, I do not doubt your newer drive in fact did score higher, however, drives have not yet reached the limits of ata66 let alone ata100. The post tells us that he can not notice a difference and this is the reason why. sis sandra is cool, I use it all the time, but hd tach gives you a better reference as to actual transfer rates.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
silverpig

silverpig

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,068
0
25,780
Run the sandra2000 hard drive bench, and then scroll down the list of details and see if you can find the buffered read numbers. If it's above 66 MB/s you know you have an ATA 100 drive. My Quantum AS ATA 100 gets about 85 MB on buffered reads (about that anyways).

Why do I even try?
 
G

Guest

Guest
>>Nice drive silverpig not many people know about the quantum AS series. they actually edge the IBM's<<

By who's reviews? TechZone's?


***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
silverpig

silverpig

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,068
0
25,780
I just got hd tach myself and did the bench on my drive. Here's my numbers:

access time 9.7 ms (funny, sandra has it at 7.8 ms)
read burst speed goes off the chart at over 80 MB/s
max read: 37044.0 KB/s
min read: 31781.0 KB/s
average read: 34434.4 KB/s

So pretty much the same as what you had.

Why do I even try?
 
G

Guest

Guest
mm looks the same and the IBM has lower access times...BUT the drive does transfer much better all the way to the end of the drive. And I've said it before for pure STR applications there are better drives than the IBM. Not just the Seagate which happens to be the only drive with better STR at the beginning of the drive. But most people don't use those type of applications a majority of the time.

***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
G

Guest

Guest
You need to be careful of just pulling benchmarks and comparing them toward your own..

That benchmark is run with "Advanced Size Check" unselected (turned off).. do that as well and run the bench and you'll see the access time for the Quantum AS jump to around 13-14.

>>The better transfger across the drive means that as the drive gets filled up with more and more data the Quantum will lose a considerable amount less than the IBM.<<

Only for apps that are more dependant on STR.




***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
G

Guest

Guest
well either way I can tell ya Tom's were not and I wouldn't use that review to compare them.

Moreover, I'm going to believe what I read on storagereview (who aren't using HDTach ) before I believe what an independant says, because they use the same platform for testing. Benchmarks vary. Now I will say that the drive they tested is a 60G model, and access times for large density drives tend to go down when they remove some platters and heads. But I've only seen one other review that found your conclusions with this drive (they were using a 30G model). I think we'd see more evidence if it actually was such a good competitor or better as you two say. I'm not saying it's a bad drive.. never did. Just need more proof to be convinced it's better than the GXP, myself.


***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
N

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,355
53
19,870
First off Tom neaver tested this drive, so no one is questioning the validity of Tom's testing. Secondly we used the exact same test and the exact same settings. What you choose to beleive is your own decision. No one here has made a statement anything to the effect that Quantum was "kicking IBM's butt" or anything like that only that this drive ( the quantum ) compared favorably to it in our tests..

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
G

Guest

Guest
>>First off Tom neaver tested this drive, so no one is questioning the validity of Tom's testing. Secondly we used the exact same test and the exact same settings. <<

I didn't say that, not once did I say you or I questioned the validiy of the pointed review.

Well I think anybody would want the discrepancies I've seen to be explained to come to a conclusion. Look at the access times found in these reviews for the drive.

<A HREF="http://www.storagereview.com" target="_new">http://www.storagereview.com</A>

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/storage/hdd-roundup.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/storage/hdd-roundup.html</A>

Both of these reviews compare the drive with multiple drives with the exact same hardware in the respective review. StorageReview uses a 60G version and XbitLabs uses a 20G (all the drives in that test were 20G, not that those other drives really matter to my point except to show the thoroughness of that review). Both drives in Storagereview and Xbitlabs exhibit access times in WB at around 13ms and Xbitlabs had it at 13ms in HDTach in Win2k. (I might would say that it's a Win2k vs Win9x issue but in the benchmark you refered too, Tom tested in both OS's and didn't post a difference and I don't usually see that kind of discrepancies..but that still may be it).

Yet we go over to THeTechZone and find a review of a 30G AS that has HDTach results like yours.

<A HREF="http://www.thetechzone.com/reviews/hard_drive/quantum/fireball_plus_as/index.shtml" target="_new">http://www.thetechzone.com/reviews/hard_drive/quantum/fireball_plus_as/index.shtml</A>

Curious review that only compares the different drives with SiSoft Sandra (a true hd benchmark if ever there was one ..:cough cough), then only puts up HDTach results for some old Maxtor and the AS in question. Not only that this site, which IMO would be better off sticking to Case and mouse pad reviews has done exactly 2 hard drive reviews by different people.. both Quantam with drives donated by Quantum.

Then we have your HDTach result, which has no system specs or drives on the same system to compare it to. Then we have the other guys HDTach results with similar situation except it's just reported results.

So beyond just believing my own decision. If you had to make one and didn't own the drive, what decision would you make?

To add to that.. HDTAch is more of a low level benchmark than anything else and still doesn't really give you any information of how it will perform with applications in the real world. It simply gives you an idea of the drives overall capabilities. Sisoft Sandra? Well.. scratch your butt and smell the drive.. you'll probably get as good a reading for what the drive can do compared to what the program tells you.

Where as WB combined with IOMeter can really give you a feel for what the drive is going to do in the real world with different applications.

Add that to the mix and what decision do you start to make if you don't own the drive?

>>>No one here has made a statement anything to the effect that Quantum was "kicking IBM's butt" or anything like that only that this drive ( the quantum ) compared favorably to it in our tests..<<<

No and I'm not an IBM fanatic either.. I simply need and I think you would too if you were me (and for other individuals who don't own the drive) to have better evidence that backs your's and Silver's tested drives juxtaposed to what I've seen posted above in the first two links. So if you can explain those discrepancies (hopefully beyond quality control) or point to some place that does, please do so and for the benefit of others who may consider this drive..

***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
N

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,355
53
19,870
I looked at your links, interesting. I noticed that the fujitsu drive posted in your link posted higher access times as compared to Tom's as well. That may suggest a platform variance between the the two sites? Please understand I never intended a glaring testimonial to the quantum drives I had only made a passing statement to silverpig. Sorry you decided to take issue with it. Still I stand by what I say, do with it what you will. Your links seem rather moot seeing those sites did not test the IBM I was refering to in the same test. It would be interesting seeing the two drives tested in the same platform. for youre information i tested the drive on two platforms The one shown was using an athlon 750 with the amd irongate chipset motherboard ( generic gateway). Onboard IDE 128 meg ram Win ME (system restore disabled). Ran the test several times and got the same results ( within 1%) everytime. Also ran the test on a socket 7 system with the via mvp chipset, amd k6-3+ 450 clocked to 600 ( by means of multiplier not fsb) and a promise ata100 controller. Same results again.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
silverpig

silverpig

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,068
0
25,780
Well, as an owner of both drives, I'll just say that for the consumer who doesn't test the drives with multiple benchmarks, the drives are essentially the same. To condense my experiences with the two drives: The real world performance difference between the drives is not noticeable at all. The Quantum drive is slightly louder but if that makes no impact on a person's choice, then I'd suggest they buy whichever drive they can get for least amount of money.

Why do I even try?
 
G

Guest

Guest
>>>I looked at your links, interesting. I noticed that the fujitsu drive posted in your link posted higher access times as compared to Tom's as well. <<<

Well that's just a blantant lie right there. Tom's MPG3409AT (40G,20G platter drive.. scores are highlighted in white/you can't miss it) is given 15.6 in HDTach and Xbitlabs MPG3204AT (20G, 20G platter drive.. it's the only Fujitsu there/you can't miss it)is given 15.2 in HDTach. That's very much in alignment, not higher than Tom's, and is what I would call a platform variance yes. But that's a far cry from 9.5 and 9.7 posted here and 13.1 at Xbitlabs in HDtach/13.2 at StorageReview in WB. Furthermore, Xbitlabs and StorageReview produce benchmarks in WB and IOmeter that confirm those HDtach results in each respective review.

>>>Your links seem rather moot seeing those sites did not test the IBM I was refering to in the same test. It would be interesting seeing the two drives tested in the same platform. <<<

Wrong.. StorageReview certainly does.. multiple 75GXPs at that, and you certainly can. And you'll see access times in WB that match up HDtach results in Tom's site for the IBM. So I've got three sites here that all line up in what they find. And two of em, XbitLabs and StorageReview, have Quantum AS reviews that say the results are not the same as what you and silver find in your meager HDTach runs.

>>>for youre information i tested the drive on two platforms The one shown was using an athlon 750 with the amd irongate chipset motherboard ( generic gateway). Onboard IDE 128 meg ram Win ME (system restore disabled). Ran the test several times and got the same results ( within 1%) everytime. Also ran the test on a socket 7 system with the via mvp chipset, amd k6-3+ 450 clocked to 600 ( by means of multiplier not fsb) and a promise ata100 controller. Same results again.<<<

You miss the point much like TheTechZone. It's the same platform with multiple drives that a person needs. So it is possible to see if there are variations in all the drives or if it's just one drive in relation to what other sites have said.

>>>Please understand I never intended a glaring testimonial to the quantum drives I had only made a passing statement to silverpig. <<<

Well that's fine.. I didn't say you did. But you contested the claims I made.. I'm simply backing that up and asking if you can explain it.

>>>Sorry you decided to take issue with it. Still I stand by what I say, do with it what you will.<<<

It's not about taking issue.. it's about making sure people who read the posts are informed and aware that your findings may not be correct. And the conjecture, personal opinion, and gut feeling of Silver doesn't really help explain it.


***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
N

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,355
53
19,870
I looked at your precious storage view website. Really got a kick out of the flashing 115 dollar shopping spree spam banner right in the middle of the add as well ( nothing but quality at storage view). what is up with testing 75 gig drives versus 20 gig drives? You don't find that a bit odd? The other link though not showing the IBM drive still showed the quantum as the fastest. Unlike yourself I prefer to test things myself in my own system to see how they work. I used hd tach simply do to the fact that is what tom used and made for some quick comparisons. I also use winbench as well to see how it performs in other simulated test. It would appear, though not everyone, that others get the same score as myself so I must not be off in left field. There are sights out there right now that declare the p4 as the second coming while others call it a POS. I do not at the moment have an IBM although will within one week. Even if I test that and the quantum and still find the quantum faster I am sure you will find issue with that as well. I do have a quantum lm series ( 30 gig) and I am not getting the results from that drive like storage view either, mine are much slower go figure.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
G

Guest

Guest
>>>I looked at your precious storage view website. Really got a kick out of the flashing 115 dollar shopping spree spam banner right in the middle of the add as well ( nothing but quality at storage view). <<<

mm That's a grieve post right there. Tom's site has flashing adds (look at the top of your screen as you read this), yet you quote from him. Lot of sites do.. you can't fault them for trying to get some monetary support for their efforts.

>>what is up with testing 75 gig drives versus 20 gig drives? You don't find that a bit odd?<<

I don't really know what drives you're talking about. They have a 75G and 45G 75GXP and a 60G Quantum AS in a database all tested the same on the same hardware very thoroughly. You pick and compare any drives you want. They are one if not probably the best (that of course is opinion) fixed disk review sites on the web. So no I don't find that odd. What I do find interesting is the ability of 75G GXP to best the 60G AS in increased loads under IOmeter, which highly points to the better access times of the GXP. The 45G model bests it in ever thing except purely sequential reads, all which suggests what's already been stated. The 20G platters give the AS a better overall STR performance.

>>>The other link though not showing the IBM drive still showed the quantum as the fastest.<<<

Point? I clearly already stated those drives have no bearing other than to show the maticulous nature of the review. I never debated you that it's not a decent performing drive, probably one of the better 7200 IDE drives out there.

>>>There are sights out there right now that declare the p4 as the second coming while others call it a POS. I do not at the moment have an IBM although will within one week.<<<

I have not a clue what the P4 has on the bearing of this argument. And the conclusions based upon CPUs have no relationship to the numbers I've linked for the drives in question. Only remotely may it compare to hard drives in the "is SCSI worth the cost/performance" argument.

>>>It would appear, though not everyone, that others get the same score as myself so I must not be off in left field.<<<

You may not. I'm certainly willing to say that. And instead of grieve posting, you could admit that maybe yours might not be correct in comparison until you can concretely show it and/or explain those discrepancies shown.


***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
 
N

Ncogneto

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,355
53
19,870
Hey chord I don't doubt your intelligence in the least. Thee are a few possible explanations for the variances. Perhaps Quantum drives got better as more were produced and the ones on storage view was an early model? Just seems odd that myself silverpig and Techzone got the same results. Never intended to start an argument just give someone a compliment. The reference to the p4 was made to show vast differences in reviews across different review sites nothing more. Made that statement in reference to why I prefer to test hardware on my own. I choose hardware tach do to the fact that was what tom used. Is IO meter better? perhaps....is it available for download? I am interested in running that as well as you have peaked my curiousity. What settings you recomend I use? Simply going out and buying every hard drive on the market is not a feasable option. I really dont think that an older motherboard with an Irongate chipset should be superior to the test platforms they are using do you? What else could explain the differences in scores using the same test software and settings ( as I have done with hd tach).

and in reply to:
You may not. I'm certainly willing to say that. And instead of grieve posting, you could admit that maybe yours might not be correct in comparison until you can concretely show it and/or explain those discrepancies shown.

To my knowledge I have run the same test with the same settings as Tom did. If he choose this test to compare drives can't I? Or are you saying that my test platform is superior to his and thus the better results? Or I am just making things up and creating false graphs?

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom