Best offers
|
My Passport Essential 500GB Portable... | $129.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Caviar Black 1TB Hard Drive (Serial... | $99.99 Dell Small Business More info |
|
My Book Essential Edition External... | $148.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
|
X25-M Gen2 160GB 2.5" Solid State... | $509.95 PC Connection More info |
|
My Passport Essential Portable 320GB... | $134.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
Partners
The Games selection
management :
Fishdom
Build and develop a kingdom for your fish! Go through the puzzles that have to be solved to earn money, and buy food and decorations to create the...
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (29) |
- Share
h2benchw was written by Harald Bögeholz, senior editor of the German magazine c’t, and has been our primary hard drive benchmark program; you can find the latest version for download on the c’t website (currently version 3.12). It is a command line tool that outputs a text file with test results. We consider this design a huge advantage, as we typically create batch files to automatically benchmark several hard drives, or to run benchmark sequences on one of multiple drives, according to our needs.
Running h2benchw
The benchmark tool requires a blank hard drive without any physical partitions. You simply open a command window and execute the file to get an overview of the benchmark options. For a regular hard drive review, we have the tool run all of the benchmarks, and we also include write tests. This requires the tool to be executed with the parameters –a (all tests) and -! (to enable write testing) and we add the parameter –w plus a file name, so the program writes all results into a results file. The command has to conclude with the physical drive number, which are numbered starting with 0. So if the test drive is the third drive, we execute “h2benchw –a -! –w testfile.txt 2”.
Typical Result Set
The following information is copied from the result set of a benchmark run with Intel’s X25-M SSD, using the latest firmware. Keep in mind that h2benchw is a German tool, which is why the default is German. There is a parameter to switch the benchmark to English, though: simply add “–english”.
Platte: INTEL SSDSA2MH080G1GN Kapazität: CHS=(9729/255/63), 156296385 Sektoren = 76317 MByte Interface-Transferrate mit Blockgröße 128 Sektoren bei 0.0% der Kapazität: Sequenzielle Leserate Medium (ungebremst): 219584 KByte/s Sequenzielle Leserate Read-Ahead (Verzögerung: 0.32 ms): 229598 KByte/s Wiederholtes sequenzielles Lesen ("Coretest"): 136489 KByte/s Sequenzielle Schreibrate Medium (ungebremst): 77693 KByte/s Sequenzielle Schreibrate Cache (Verzögerung: 0.91 ms): 131122 KByte/s Wiederholtes sequenzielles Schreiben: 73395 KByte/s Dauertransferrate (Blockgröße: 128 Sektoren): Lesen: Mittel 216289.5, Min 201556.7, Max 226526.4 [KByte/s] Schreiben: Mittel 36717.6, Min 5890.5, Max 81008.2 [KByte/s] Zugriffszeit Lesen: Mittel 0.11, Min 0.10, Max 0.22 [ms] Zugriffszeit Schreiben: Mittel 0.07, Min 0.05, Max 0.49 [ms] Zugriffszeit Lesen (<504 MByte): Mittel 0.11, Min 0.10, Max 0.32 [ms] Zugriffszeit Schreiben (<504 MByte): Mittel 0.07, Min 0.05, Max 0.49 [ms] Anwendungsprofil `Swappen': 42058.1 KByte/s Anwendungsprofil `Installieren': 197091.2 KByte/s Anwendungsprofil `Word': 49618.4 KByte/s Anwendungsprofil `Photoshop': 86639.3 KByte/s Anwendungsprofil `Kopieren': 169223.3 KByte/s Anwendungsprofil `F-Prot': 74861.8 KByte/s Gesamtergebnis: Anwendungsindex = 85.5 ATA-Platte: INTEL SSDSA2MH080G1GN Seriennr. : CVEM8304007A080DGN Firmware : 045C8820 Standard-Version: ATA/ATAPI-7 Unterstützte UDMA-Modi: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 UDMA-Mode 6 aktiviert. Kapazität (28-Bit-Adressierung): 156301488 Sektoren (76319.1 MByte) Kapazität (48-Bit-Adressierung): 156301488 Sektoren (76319.1 MByte) Akustik-Management nicht unterstützt. |
Disk: INTEL SSDSA2MH080G1GN Capacity: CHS=(9729/255/63), 156296385 sectors = 76317 MByte Interface transfer rate w/ block size 128 sectors at 0.0% of capacity: Sequential read rate medium (w/out delay): 223248 KByte/s Sequential transfer rate w/ read-ahead (delay: 0.32 ms): 228937 KByte/s Repetitive sequential read ("core test"): 118060 KByte/s Sequential write rate medium (w/out delay): 76222 KByte/s Sequential transfer rate write cache (delay: 0.92 ms): 149651 KByte/s Repetitive sequential write: 97497 KByte/s Sustained transfer rate (block size: 128 sectors): Reading: average 223889.8, min 200768.8, max 226779.4 [KByte/s] Writing: average 74905.6, min 53829.7, max 79484.7 [KByte/s] Random access read: average 0.11, min 0.10, max 0.22 [ms] Random access write: average 0.07, min 0.05, max 0.62 [ms] Random access read (<504 MByte): average 0.11, min 0.10, max 0.28 [ms] Random access write (<504 MByte): average 0.07, min 0.05, max 0.64 [ms] Application profile `swapping': 44137.0 KByte/s Application profile `installing': 197964.3 KByte/s Application profile `Word': 93019.9 KByte/s Application profile `Photoshop': 90468.3 KByte/s Application profile `copying': 207758.2 KByte/s Application profile `F-Prot': 74834.7 KByte/s Result: application index = 99.9 ATA disk: INTEL SSDSA2MH080G1GN Serial #: CVEM8304007A080DGN Firmware: 045C8820 Version of specification: ATA-ATAPI-7 Supported UDMA modes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 UDMA mode 6 active. capacity (28-bit addressing): 156301488 sectors (76319.1 MByte) Capacity (48-bit addressing): 156301488 sectors (76319.1 MByte) acoustic management not supported. |
Evaluating Results
We use the text file to create a data transfer diagram for read and write operations (not shown above), and also use most of the other numbers that the benchmark provides. h2benchw provides results for typical application scenarios, such as the swapping RAM data into a swap file, installing software to the drive, running applications, copying data from and to the same drive, and a simulation of the F-Prot anti virus tool. However, we decided to use PCMark Vantage’s HDD benchmark, as its test suite is more up to date. h2benchw also returns read and write access time (Zugriffszeit) and various technical parameters, which may be helpful.
- 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.
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.