If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Are these HD speeds OK?
On this PC (Quad Core Q9450 2.66 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 667 MHz) I have 2
identical Samsung HD753LJ 750 GB hard drives. The spec at http://www.testfreaks.co.uk/internal...msung-hd753lj/ says: "The Samsung HD753LJ has 512 bytes per sector and a rotational speed of 7200 RPM. In terms of its performance, it has an average latency of 4.17 ms, and an average seek time of 8.9 ms. Media transfer rate is at a maximum of 175 MB/ second while interface transfer rate is at a maximum of 300 MB/ second." But the HD Tune benchmarks I just ran gives results well below those: HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (My main HD, C Transfer Rate Minimum : 44.8 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 89.9 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 73.2 MB/sec Access Time : 13.9 ms Burst Rate : 89.2 MB/sec CPU Usage : 5.5% HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (Mostly for backup, I Transfer Rate Minimum : 65.1 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 102.3 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 91.8 MB/sec Access Time : 13.8 ms Burst Rate : 147.7 MB/sec CPU Usage : 6.3% In not-too-technical terms, can one of the experts advise why this can be so please? Also, I'm puzzled why my backup drive is some 25% faster? -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Are these HD speeds OK?
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:33:25 +0100, Terry Pinnell
wrote: On this PC (Quad Core Q9450 2.66 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 667 MHz) I have 2 identical Samsung HD753LJ 750 GB hard drives. The spec at http://www.testfreaks.co.uk/internal...msung-hd753lj/ says: "The Samsung HD753LJ has 512 bytes per sector and a rotational speed of 7200 RPM. In terms of its performance, it has an average latency of 4.17 ms, and an average seek time of 8.9 ms. Media transfer rate is at a maximum of 175 MB/ second while interface transfer rate is at a maximum of 300 MB/ second." But the HD Tune benchmarks I just ran gives results well below those: "Access time" in your scores is the same as latency plus seek time above. They come out even. The "media transfer rate" quoted above is not believable, frankly. It sounds like a read totally out of the HD's cache. "Burst rate" in yours is similarly useless. The "interface transfer rate" is of course irrelevant, it's just SATA-300. Yours is believable - my Samsung 1gig gets between 80 and 120meg/second using an OSX benchmark program, for comparison. HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (My main HD, C Transfer Rate Minimum : 44.8 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 89.9 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 73.2 MB/sec Access Time : 13.9 ms Burst Rate : 89.2 MB/sec CPU Usage : 5.5% HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (Mostly for backup, I Transfer Rate Minimum : 65.1 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 102.3 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 91.8 MB/sec Access Time : 13.8 ms Burst Rate : 147.7 MB/sec CPU Usage : 6.3% In not-too-technical terms, can one of the experts advise why this can be so please? Also, I'm puzzled why my backup drive is some 25% faster? Two things. First, the C: drive is also in use by Windows while the HD Tune benchmark is happening. This can easily massively disrupt the test with just a couple of extra seeks. Second, have you tried rerunning the tests? Synthetic benchmarks like this are generally pretty irregular. I wouldn't trust anything that took less than a minute to generate an HD score, and even then I'd run it three times. And a general thing - benchmarking software scores are only comparable with the *same* benchmark on the *same* hardware (except the device being tested). There's no way to make accurate comparisons with different benchmarks, and/or across different host hardware. You can get a feel, but nothing accurate. Benchmarks are not direct indicators of real life performance. Cheers - Jaimie -- "other e-mail programs like Eudora are not designed to enable virus replication." Microsoft implicitly admits Outlook Express design criteria at http://www.microsoft.com/mac/product...irus_alert.asp (you'll have to prepend that with http://web.archive.org/web/20010413120903/ ) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Are these HD speeds OK?
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Terry Pinnell wrote:
On this PC (Quad Core Q9450 2.66 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 667 MHz) I have 2 identical Samsung HD753LJ 750 GB hard drives. The spec at http://www.testfreaks.co.uk/internal...msung-hd753lj/ says: "The Samsung HD753LJ has 512 bytes per sector and a rotational speed of 7200 RPM. In terms of its performance, it has an average latency of 4.17 ms, and an average seek time of 8.9 ms. Media transfer rate is at a maximum of 175 MB/ second while interface transfer rate is at a maximum of 300 MB/ second." .... at a (not seen in practice) maximum ... But the HD Tune benchmarks I just ran gives results well below those: HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (My main HD, C Transfer Rate Minimum : 44.8 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 89.9 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 73.2 MB/sec Access Time : 13.9 ms Burst Rate : 89.2 MB/sec CPU Usage : 5.5% Fine. HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (Mostly for backup, I Transfer Rate Minimum : 65.1 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 102.3 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 91.8 MB/sec Access Time : 13.8 ms Burst Rate : 147.7 MB/sec CPU Usage : 6.3% Fine as well. In not-too-technical terms, can one of the experts advise why this can be so please? Simple: You fell for marketing speech. Maximum xyz rates are all only theoretical values or values only seen under very special circumstances, e.g. long linear reads at the very start of the disk. Also, I'm puzzled why my backup drive is some 25% faster? It is on a different controller? Or does it have different settings? Arno |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Are these HD speeds OK?
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:33:25 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote: On this PC (Quad Core Q9450 2.66 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 667 MHz) I have 2 identical Samsung HD753LJ 750 GB hard drives. The spec at http://www.testfreaks.co.uk/internal...msung-hd753lj/ says: "The Samsung HD753LJ has 512 bytes per sector and a rotational speed of 7200 RPM. In terms of its performance, it has an average latency of 4.17 ms, and an average seek time of 8.9 ms. Media transfer rate is at a maximum of 175 MB/ second while interface transfer rate is at a maximum of 300 MB/ second." But the HD Tune benchmarks I just ran gives results well below those: "Access time" in your scores is the same as latency plus seek time above. They come out even. The "media transfer rate" quoted above is not believable, frankly. It sounds like a read totally out of the HD's cache. "Burst rate" in yours is similarly useless. The "interface transfer rate" is of course irrelevant, it's just SATA-300. Yours is believable - my Samsung 1gig gets between 80 and 120meg/second using an OSX benchmark program, for comparison. HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (My main HD, C Transfer Rate Minimum : 44.8 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 89.9 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 73.2 MB/sec Access Time : 13.9 ms Burst Rate : 89.2 MB/sec CPU Usage : 5.5% HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (Mostly for backup, I Transfer Rate Minimum : 65.1 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 102.3 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 91.8 MB/sec Access Time : 13.8 ms Burst Rate : 147.7 MB/sec CPU Usage : 6.3% In not-too-technical terms, can one of the experts advise why this can be so please? Also, I'm puzzled why my backup drive is some 25% faster? Two things. First, the C: drive is also in use by Windows while the HD Tune benchmark is happening. This can easily massively disrupt the test with just a couple of extra seeks. Second, have you tried rerunning the tests? Synthetic benchmarks like this are generally pretty irregular. I wouldn't trust anything that took less than a minute to generate an HD score, and even then I'd run it three times. And a general thing - benchmarking software scores are only comparable with the *same* benchmark on the *same* hardware (except the device being tested). There's no way to make accurate comparisons with different benchmarks, and/or across different host hardware. You can get a feel, but nothing accurate. Benchmarks are not direct indicators of real life performance. Very true. Arno |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Are these HD speeds OK?
Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:33:25 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote: On this PC (Quad Core Q9450 2.66 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 667 MHz) I have 2 identical Samsung HD753LJ 750 GB hard drives. The spec at http://www.testfreaks.co.uk/internal...msung-hd753lj/ says: "The Samsung HD753LJ has 512 bytes per sector and a rotational speed of 7200 RPM. In terms of its performance, it has an average latency of 4.17 ms, and an average seek time of 8.9 ms. Media transfer rate is at a maximum of 175 MB/ second while interface transfer rate is at a maximum of 300 MB/ second." But the HD Tune benchmarks I just ran gives results well below those: "Access time" in your scores is the same as latency plus seek time above. They come out even. The "media transfer rate" quoted above is not believable, frankly. It sounds like a read totally out of the HD's cache. "Burst rate" in yours is similarly useless. The "interface transfer rate" is of course irrelevant, it's just SATA-300. Yours is believable - my Samsung 1gig gets between 80 and 120meg/second using an OSX benchmark program, for comparison. HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (My main HD, C Transfer Rate Minimum : 44.8 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 89.9 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 73.2 MB/sec Access Time : 13.9 ms Burst Rate : 89.2 MB/sec CPU Usage : 5.5% HD Tune: SAMSUNG HD753LJ Benchmark (Mostly for backup, I Transfer Rate Minimum : 65.1 MB/sec Transfer Rate Maximum : 102.3 MB/sec Transfer Rate Average : 91.8 MB/sec Access Time : 13.8 ms Burst Rate : 147.7 MB/sec CPU Usage : 6.3% In not-too-technical terms, can one of the experts advise why this can be so please? Also, I'm puzzled why my backup drive is some 25% faster? Two things. First, the C: drive is also in use by Windows while the HD Tune benchmark is happening. This can easily massively disrupt the test with just a couple of extra seeks. Second, have you tried rerunning the tests? Synthetic benchmarks like this are generally pretty irregular. I wouldn't trust anything that took less than a minute to generate an HD score, and even then I'd run it three times. And a general thing - benchmarking software scores are only comparable with the *same* benchmark on the *same* hardware (except the device being tested). There's no way to make accurate comparisons with different benchmarks, and/or across different host hardware. You can get a feel, but nothing accurate. Benchmarks are not direct indicators of real life performance. Cheers - Jaimie Thanks both, understood and reassured. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Are these HD speeds OK?
The 175MB/s is during sector I/O, there are gaps and ECC that add overhead.
Multiply that by 0.8 and you get 120MB/s on the outer zone (first several GB). The drive or channel with lower burst rate may be configured as SATA150. "Terry Pinnell" wrote in message ... On this PC (Quad Core Q9450 2.66 GHz, 4 GB DDR2 667 MHz) I have 2 identical Samsung HD753LJ 750 GB hard drives. The spec at http://www.testfreaks.co.uk/internal...msung-hd753lj/ says: "The Samsung HD753LJ has 512 bytes per sector and a rotational speed of 7200 RPM. In terms of its performance, it has an average latency of 4.17 ms, and an average seek time of 8.9 ms. Media transfer rate is at a maximum of 175 MB/ second while interface transfer rate is at a maximum of 300 MB/ second." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USB 1.1 speeds? | Calab | General | 8 | December 20th 07 07:30 AM |
Fan speeds | Texas Yankee | Overclocking | 6 | March 8th 06 04:09 PM |
CPU speeds? | Xeno Chauvin | Overclocking AMD Processors | 11 | February 24th 06 02:48 PM |
FSB Speeds | Kris Rawlison | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | January 5th 04 01:01 AM |
HDD Speeds... | Shep© | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | October 25th 03 11:06 PM |