Power, Efficiency, Temperature, And Noise Testing

Previous Next
2:00 AM - 05/06/2009 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos

Power Consumption Testing

Simply measuring idle and peak power isn’t necessarily enough, as power used during drive activity can vary a lot. Hence we decided to measure power while the drives are working on specific workloads. All power measurements are executed at the drive’s power connector, using a Voltcraft VC940 multimeter, so the results reflect the actual drive power requirement very accurately. The multimeter we selected has a USB port, which allows us to track power at all times. Typically we use 1-second increments. Since we need to track both 5 V and 12 V levels, we use two of these multimeters. Thanks to this feature we can not only look at average power consumption for specific workloads, but can also track the total power used for a workload or after a certain period of time.

The Voltcraft device provides nice bang for the buck—the device isn’t cheap, but it offers sufficient precision for our purposes. There are better solutions, but our results don’t need to be at a scientific level.

Measurement
Purpose
Action
Power at idleLow power idle requirementSimple measurement after 10 minutes of system inactivity
HD Movie Playback
Determine power consumption at defined streamWe use the VLC player version 9.8h and play “The Big Buck Bunny” between 49s and 469s
IOmeter Streaming Reads
Determine power requirement at maximum sequential throughputExecute streaming read benchmark with IOMeter, track peak power
IOmeter Workstation I/O
Determine power requirement at maximum random I/O activityExecute workstation benchmark with IOMeter, track peak power


Efficiency Testing

Since we are able to track the amount of power for each of the benchmarks, we can easily look at the performance score per watt-hour used, which we do using the IOmeter benchmark profiles. That’s watt-hours, by the way, not watts per hour. An alternative is to use an average benchmark result and divide it by the average power used, to calculate performance per watt.

Temperature Testing

We use a laser-assisted infrared thermometer to measure the surface temperature of hard drives and SSDs. Since we want to look at peak temperature, we execute the IOMeter benchmark runs before measuring surface temperature. We examine all six sides of the SSD and work with the highest temperature reading we get.

Noise Testing

This is a critical aspect of our testing that many of our readers have been requesting, but at the same time we recognize that the testing does not always make sense. We built a sound-proofed box many years ago, which allows us to place a hard drive on a flat and dampened surface within the box, and insert a decibel meter from the top. It is important to maintain exactly the same distance between the noise emitting product and the microphone of the decibel meter, or the results will not be comparable. While we will keep doing this for all new drives, there are several things to keep in mind:

  • Measured noise in dB(A) does not always reflect subjective noise. It may happen that a drive is objectively quiet, although some people perceive it as being more noisy.
  • Measured noise may include vibrational noise. It may happen that a drive may appear noisier than it actually is, as we cannot fully eliminate noise from drive vibration.
  • Is noise really relevant? For all hard drives running at 5,400 RPM and below, we believe that the noise level is only relevant for a very small fraction of all users; 7,200 RPM desktop hard drives are also typically quiet. As a result, any fan—especially one on a graphics card—is going to be noisier than a drive in idle. Drive activity noise, however, is more important.

We measure noise during an IOmeter workstation test run, and when the drive is in active idle mode (spinning), and track the peak values we get. We repeat these tests three times to make sure that results aren’t influenced by external sound sources, as the measuring equipment is highly sensitive.

Talkback
kyeana 05/06/2009 9:05 AM
Hide
-0+

:D

joeman42 05/06/2009 9:07 AM
Hide
-3+

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.....

crisisavatar 05/06/2009 9:51 AM
Hide
-0+

woot charts ! now we need gpu ones ( i dont mind waiting til Q2 is over )

curryj02 05/06/2009 10:13 AM
Hide
-1+

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

SpadeM 05/06/2009 10:47 AM
Hide
-5+

joeman42 :
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.

neiroatopelcc 05/06/2009 10:52 AM
Hide
-0+

The charts are bad, but the last version was bad too. The one before that was fine though.

xsamitt 05/06/2009 1:30 PM
Hide
-2+

I said we'd get harddrive review this week and lo and behold pappa was right.

acasel 05/06/2009 2:44 PM
Hide
-1+

I like the drop down menu now... Its much faster :-)

neiroatopelcc 05/06/2009 2:47 PM
Hide
-1+

acasel :
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.

sublifer 05/06/2009 3:39 PM
Hide
-1+

Yay! drop down menu is back!

xsamitt 05/06/2009 4:20 PM
Hide
-1+

Yes but we were told we'd have our avatars back?i don't see them ,do you?

sandmanwn 05/06/2009 4:23 PM
Hide
-1+

yeah avatars would be nice to help break up the monotonous comment section. its just one big blob of text.

sandmanwn 05/06/2009 4:26 PM
Hide
-2+

WHAT HAPPENED TO OCZ DRIVES!!! Did Intel slip some money under the table?

neiroatopelcc 05/06/2009 4:28 PM
Hide
--1+

xsamitt :
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.

fausto 05/06/2009 5:16 PM
Hide
-0+

there has to be a better way to do this. all i care about is real world performance. these charts are useless.

neiroatopelcc 05/06/2009 5:32 PM
Hide
-3+

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.

stilespj 05/06/2009 10:52 PM
Hide
-3+

Ditto on the useless chart theme!!!

Anonymous 05/06/2009 10:54 PM
Hide
-0+

No numbers for Intel power consumption!???? what a joke. C'mon Tom's surely you can do better.

Area51 05/06/2009 11:01 PM
Hide
-2+

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.

Anonymous 05/06/2009 11:01 PM
Hide
-1+

No Intel SSD numbers at all! that's got to be the biggest oversight in the history of the universe.


Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links

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.

All about Storage Solutions
 Latest Storage Solutions articles
All Storage Solutions articles
 Storage Solutions performance charts
All performance charts
 Latest Storage Solutions news
All Storage Solutions news

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

adventure : Ray Adventure game, South Park style. Pick the way the story goes by picking an answer among those offered.
arcade : Call of Atlantis Start a new and exciting quest in this game that is a mixture of 3 popular games : the match-3, hidden objects, and adventure. Bring together the...
Ads

Sponsored links