Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Tom's Storage Charts 2009: A New Test Environment

Tom's Storage Charts 2009: A New Test Environment

We used our old storage test system for five years, and in that time, tested more than 250 hard drives and solid state drives (SSDs) as well as dozens of host adapters and RAID controllers. Although the platform still sounds reasonable—it is a 3.6 GHz Xeon Nocona single-core processor on an E7520 platform with 1 GB of DDR2-400 RAM—we felt that it was about time for a clean move to a more modern storage test system.

We decided to use a Core i7 920 and a flexible X58 motherboard by Supermicro. With it, we created new desktop, mobile, and SSD performance charts for 2009.

Storage Testing History

In an effort to include as many test results as possible (for the sake of direct comparison), it is important to use a consistent system setup for as long as possible. The mentioned Xeon system did a great job in its time with us. The processor was fast enough, and the Asus NCL-DS motherboard’s PCI, PCI-X, and PCI Express slots enabled us to test all sorts of storage adapters and hard drives on a single system. This meant that all of our performance numbers have been directly comparable. It has even been possible to compare drives across different market segments. The results have been available in our charts section, sorted by market segment:

3.5” Desktop Hard Drive Charts

2.5” Mobile Hard Drive Charts

Enterprise Hard Drive Charts (3.5” and 2.5”)

SSD Charts

External Drive Charts

The 3.5” desktop hard drive charts include most of the 3.5” hard drives on the market. Most of these are 7,200 RPM models, but the recent 5,400 RPM low-power drives are also included. The charts go all the way back to 2005, and include 80 GB hard drives as well as the latest models.

Our 2.5” notebook hard drive charts list SATA and UltraATA models, showcasing 4,200, 5,400, and 7,200 RPM models for easy comparison. The enterprise hard drive charts include 2.5” and 3.5” models running at 10,000 or 15,000 RPM. Finally, the external drive charts list a representative selection of recent and mature storage products. The SSD charts are the latest addition, and allow you to compare solid state drives easily.

Reasons for the Upgrade

Although we could have kept the old platform for a little while longer, there were several reasons why we decided to wipe the slate clean. First of all, Windows Server 2003 might soon become an issue for drives >2 TB, as older operating systems do not always support partitions above that size. You will be able to run a 3 TB hard drive, for example, on Windows XP, but the maximum partition size is 2 TB.

Second, the Xeon system itself is outdated by today’s standards. It is noisy, the system requires almost 250 W idle power due to its inefficient 90 nm core, which is basically the Pentium 4 Prescott, and its performance might be a limitation for the latest flash SSDs. Please check the article Does Power-Saving Technology Kill SSD Performance? For details on power versus performance with flash SSDs.

In addition to capacity and efficiency concerns, storage features were another reason to drop the old solution. The integrated Serial ATA storage controller was based on an 6300ESB I/O controller hub, and hence only supported SATA/150. To get around this, we decided to use a Promise FastTrak TX4310 SATA/300 controller, which initially did well, but turned out to be a performance bottleneck for drives that deliver more than 100 MB/s of throughput. This didn’t impact relative comparisons, as the performance ranking of various drives was the same as on other controllers, but the limited performance has been affecting our results with high-speed drives.

Finally, it wasn’t possible to check idle power on many drives, as none of the desktop or workstation controllers we used would support device-initiated power management. The new system, which is based on an X58 chipset and ICH10R, supports all of the current features, giving us some headroom until SATA/600 arrives next year. And it does everything at an idle power of only a bit more than 100 W. Now we're cooking...

Display all 28 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    kyeana , May 6, 2009 7:05 AM
  • 0 Hide
    crisisavatar , May 6, 2009 7:51 AM
    woot charts ! now we need gpu ones ( i dont mind waiting til Q2 is over )
  • 1 Hide
    curryj02 , May 6, 2009 8:13 AM
    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
  • 5 Hide
    SpadeM , May 6, 2009 8:47 AM
    joeman42These 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.
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , May 6, 2009 8:52 AM
    The charts are bad, but the last version was bad too. The one before that was fine though.
  • 2 Hide
    xsamitt , May 6, 2009 11:30 AM
    I said we'd get harddrive review this week and lo and behold pappa was right.
  • 1 Hide
    acasel , May 6, 2009 12:44 PM
    I like the drop down menu now... Its much faster :-)
  • 1 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , May 6, 2009 12:47 PM
    acaselI 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.
  • 1 Hide
    sublifer , May 6, 2009 1:39 PM
    Yay! drop down menu is back!
  • 1 Hide
    xsamitt , May 6, 2009 2:20 PM
    Yes but we were told we'd have our avatars back?i don't see them ,do you?
  • 1 Hide
    sandmanwn , May 6, 2009 2:23 PM
    yeah avatars would be nice to help break up the monotonous comment section. its just one big blob of text.
  • 2 Hide
    sandmanwn , May 6, 2009 2:26 PM
    WHAT HAPPENED TO OCZ DRIVES!!! Did Intel slip some money under the table?
  • -1 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , May 6, 2009 2:28 PM
    xsamittYes 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.
  • 0 Hide
    fausto , May 6, 2009 3:16 PM
    there has to be a better way to do this. all i care about is real world performance. these charts are useless.
  • 3 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , May 6, 2009 3:32 PM
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    stilespj , May 6, 2009 8:52 PM
    Ditto on the useless chart theme!!!
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 6, 2009 8:54 PM
    No numbers for Intel power consumption!???? what a joke. C'mon Tom's surely you can do better.
  • 2 Hide
    Area51 , May 6, 2009 9:01 PM
    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.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , May 6, 2009 9:01 PM
    No Intel SSD numbers at all! that's got to be the biggest oversight in the history of the universe.
  • 4 Hide
    drumerman , May 7, 2009 3:29 AM
    SSD charts need intel's drives as well as OCZ's vertex drives... these drives aren't that new, they should be listed
Display more comments