The 2.5" vs. 3.5" RAID Challenge

Test Setup

Socket 604 Dual Intel Pentium 4 Xeon, 2.8 GHz,
512 kB Cache, FSB533
System Components
DDR-SDRAM 2x 512 MB PC3200 Samsung,
ECC, Registered
Motherboard Asus PP-DLW, Rev. 1.03
Intel E7505 Chipset
Graphics Card Matrox Millennium G450 AGP, 32 MB
Hard Drives System Drive: Western Digital WD1200BB
Test Drives:
4x Fujitsu MHT2060BS
4x Western Digital Caviar RE WD1600SD
Controller I/O Benchmarks:
Adaptec AHA-2410SA, 4-Port SATA
Data Transfer Benchmarks:
Areca ARC-1120
Intel Chipset Intel Chipset Installation Utility
Intel Application Accelerator RAID Edition Ver. 3.53
DirectX 9.0b
OS Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
Controller Drivers 3Ware Software
LSI Driver
I/O Performance IOMeter 2003.05.10
Fileserver Benchmark
Webserver Benchmark
Database Benchmark
Workstation Benchmark
Throughput Benchmark
Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Anonymous
    If you look closely you will see that this review compared 5400rpm 2.5" drives with 7200rpm 3.5" drives.

    Which makes it completely useless and flawed. I seriously can't believe Tom's did that. Maybe if there had been 5400rpm 3.5" drives included, some useful information could be gleaned from the tests.

    This entire article should be deleted just to save face, if not disk space. This article's very existence makes me embarrassed for Tom's Hardware.
  • Anonymous
    This is ridiculous
    the outside speed of the platter !!
    I cannot believe it .. you wait one turn never mind where your data are located and at 7200rpm your platter may be 1 meter in diameter it is not going to change anything it will stl be one rouind trip
    You will wait one turn ( 1/7200th of a second )
    It ain't go faster nor slower mechanically
    The heads are another story