- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (29) |
- Share
While the throughput of hard drives was a bit slower on the old system due to the performance bottlenecks of the aging Promise controller we used, the difference in I/O performance was more significant. We used two popular hard drives to compare hard drive I/O performance on the old and new storage test systems, and we found a consistent performance difference of at least 30%:
Clearly, the old storage test system, based on a Xeon Nocona 3.6 GHz processor, wasn’t fast enough to make the most out of hard drive I/O performance potential. Whether we used a 7,200 RPM 3.5” Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 drive or the 10,000 RPM 2.5” VelociRaptor by Western Digital, the drives deliver much better I/O performance on the Core i7 system. We can only speculate about the reasons, as even the older Promise controller supports NCQ, but only Intel’s ICH10R also supports AHCI mode, which typically delivers slightly better performance.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Min spec CPU for HTPC?
- Biggest Bottleneck
- Need suggestions on quality PSU
- Advice on a memory purchase?
- $1500-$1700 build
- can i get help to choose if these parts ive found work well etc
- Im newbie building my first system HELP!!
- Good build for the future?
- I got the 9800 GX2!!!!
- Raid 10 vs 15K SAS
- Old Raptors vs. New Raptors
- how do I know if my HD is operating at sata 3.0?
- High capacity HDD!!!
- Which HDD brand do you recommend?
Related articles
-
Tom's Storage Charts 2009: A New Test Environment
Our old 3.6 GHz Xeon is making way for a brand new X58-based Core i7 solution with PCI-X and PCIe, which we will use to test hard drives, SSDs, controllers, and other storage products. We introduce you to our new reference platform and talk about testing!
-
Find Your Notebook Hard Drive: 2.5" Performance Charts
We've had performance charts for 3.5" desktop hard drives. Today we extend this service and include 2.5" notebook hard drives.
-
Tom's Summer CPU Charts Assault
Intel's Core 2 might be the cure to Pentium pains, but it isn't necessarily the best choice for everyone. We test-drove 83 processors across a 37-benchmark parcours and once again offer the best processor comparison on the web.
Best offers
|
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable... | $129.99 STAPLES More info |
|
WD Elements External 1.5TB 3.5" Hard... | $129.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
My Book Essential Edition External... | $148.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
|
Elements External 1TB 3.5" Hard Drive... | $99.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Caviar Green 2TB Hard Drive (SATA II,... | $232.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
These charts are a disaster. The same exact label is used to denote multiple drives. E.g., Western Digital Raptor or Seagate 7200.11 are each repeated over a half dozen times on each chart. Trying to find a specific model requires you to follow the product link over and over again on each chart. I gave up, still not sure if the one I was interested in is even listed.....
woot charts ! now we need gpu ones ( i dont mind waiting til Q2 is over )
Loving the reinstatement of the 'article index' drop down menu... But I think someone needs to smooth out the rough edges. Minor points, but ones I will make nonetheless.
First, the dimensions are such that you have vertical AND horizontal scroll... kinda annoying.
Second, the 'index button' width is slightly smaller than the actual drop down menu that appears. So if you click the down arrow and move your cursor directly down (which because of the width issue, is not over the drop down menu) it deselects the index and it disappears. ARGGHHH
These charts are a disaster. The same exact label is used to denote multiple drives. E.g., Western Digital Raptor or Seagate 7200.11 are each repeated over a half dozen times on each chart. Trying to find a specific model requires you to follow the product link over and over again on each chart. I gave up, still not sure if the one I was interested in is even listed.....
He's right, and if I select WD and Samsung as filters, and then choose a benchmark, I get all the HDD listed and i have to choose my filters every time I select a benchmark. The old chart system before the site was "pimped" was way better then this.
The charts are bad, but the last version was bad too. The one before that was fine though.
I said we'd get harddrive review this week and lo and behold pappa was right.
I like the drop down menu now... Its much faster :-)
I like the drop down menu now... Its much faster :-)
ye but I'd gladly trade the menu for the old layout with avatars and less gray on gray.
Yay! drop down menu is back!
Yes but we were told we'd have our avatars back?i don't see them ,do you?
yeah avatars would be nice to help break up the monotonous comment section. its just one big blob of text.
WHAT HAPPENED TO OCZ DRIVES!!! Did Intel slip some money under the table?
Yes but we were told we'd have our avatars back?i don't see them ,do you?
Jane said there was a chance, but she didn't promise.
there has to be a better way to do this. all i care about is real world performance. these charts are useless.
The charts are useless if you don't know what you need. Yes. But they wouldn't be useless to most of us if we could see which model was performing how well. I know what I need to care most about is average read speed on all my drives except the system one, where access time is relevant as well.
Ditto on the useless chart theme!!!
No numbers for Intel power consumption!???? what a joke. C'mon Tom's surely you can do better.
I don't get two things.
1. If this is a test bed then shouldn't you be using the fastest CPU available to you? Also I believe the i920 has a 4.8GT/s, so it can be a limiting factor when you are testing other components.
2. Why are you not including the Intel SSD's They have been around for a while and they are still missing from your SSD charts.
No Intel SSD numbers at all! that's got to be the biggest oversight in the history of the universe.