1st ever Harddisk benchmark thread

MrSpartan1717 · March 5th, 2009, 04:36 AM

Might have to install windows XP. And erase after real quick afterwards. Look like it is only for XP/Vista. Wonder if the hard drive can even handle the install. I would laugh i the thing still boots.

ShyguyXPC · March 5th, 2009, 04:48 AM

LOL, darn, only XP & Vista, well there goes my reason for firing up the old K6/2 500MHz rig with the old 3.2GB IBM drive

(still has my old install of 98 on it from 6-7+ years ago)

MrSpartan1717 · March 5th, 2009, 04:50 AM

I will try it tommorw and then get back to you guys.

Quantam Bigfoot 5.25 Series 6505AT CY64A492 REV 01-C A0305 6.5GB

This thing is so heavy and Big!!!!!!! Guess that why they named it the Big Foot. LOL

Quantum Bigfoot (hard drive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MrSpartan1717 · March 5th, 2009, 04:52 AM

I know I wanna try it. That is why im using my old ASUS P5VD2 MX SE because it has IDE Controllers. And it is fast enough for XP.

MrSpartan1717 · March 5th, 2009, 04:54 AM

You could put windows XP on there it will run like fat lady chasing cake. Slow but at least you get there eventually. To do the bench mark that is.

Ultima · March 5th, 2009, 05:07 AM

MrSpartan,

please just use 1 post to do replies, the way you do that now is clogging up the thread

MrSpartan1717 · March 5th, 2009, 05:42 AM

ya sorry i kept getting though after thought. Anyways Im actully doing it now. Got the drive all setup and installing windows XP pro. Man this drive is loud though

JLK03F150 · March 5th, 2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultima

Stats have been updated again, JLK, your burst rate is just insane, did you do the test a few times to see if it stays that way??
Seems the 2 Blacks are pretty fast indeed if they can stay ahead of 3 raptors in raid, are yours the "old" ones or the newer revisions??

Yes, the burst rate stays consistent with write-back cache enabled. It's close to the average read when disabled. It looks impressive in a benchmark, but TBH I can't really see a difference between enabled & disabled.

My drives are the "old" WD74-GD model. The newer model is the WD74-ADFD.

ShyguyXPC · March 5th, 2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLK03F150

Yes, the burst rate stays consistent with write-back cache enabled. It's close to the average read when disabled. It looks impressive in a benchmark, but TBH I can't really see a difference between enabled & disabled.

My drives are the "old" WD74-GD model. The newer model is the WD74-ADFD.

anyone here have a pair or more of SAS drives in RAID 0 to compete with JLK's drives? anyone?

Ultima · March 5th, 2009, 03:31 PM

Well, I have a DL360 G3, which has a pair of 15k rpm U320 SCSI discs in raid 0, lemme see what it benches

*EDIT*

I benched the DL360 and turns out, U320 15k rpm scsi discs perform quite bad in those tests, only thing my drives were faster with then JKL's is access time, I had 6.1ms, other then that, max was 76.4MB/s ?? should be a LOT higher, shouldn't it??