Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]

Performance in WinBench 99

We start out with WinBench 99 and the graphs of linear read speed. They show us that the potentially high transfer rates of the drives are cut off by the effective bandwidth of the interfaces they connect through.

  • Maxtor A14B120 USB 2.0 (graph);
  • Western Digital WDXU1200BB USB 2.0 (graph);
  • Western Digital WDXC1200JB USB 2.0 (graph);
  • Western Digital WDXC1200JB FireWire (graph).

WinBench 99: FAT32

The following table contains the results of the drives in WinBench when their entire surface was used:

The WDXC1200JB wins both Business Disk Winmark and High-End Disk Winmark tests, attached to USB 2.0 and FireWire interfaces, respectively. I should confess that this is a natural outcome – that drive has 8MB of cache memory against 2MB of the other two devices. In its turn, the Maxtor OneTouch is slightly better than the second drive from Western Digital, although has a higher (i.e. worse) access time.

WinBench 99: FAT32 (32GB capacity)

Now we perform the test again over a 32GB partition. The WDXC1200JB, with any interface, is legging it much faster than the other drives in High-End Disk Winmark. However, the FireWire interface seems a preferable connection here. The OneTouch A14B120 takes the third position. Probably, when a limited portion of the disc space is used, the difference in the access time is negated. The WDXU1200BB is the last one in this test. If we compare the results of this test with the previous one, we’ll notice that the performance difference between the full and 32GB of capacity is small due to the “leveling” effect imposed by the limited bandwidth of the interfaces.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 ]


Comments currently: 3
Discussion started: 07/08/04 09:52:50 AM
Latest comment: 12/11/15 01:58:31 PM

View comments

Add your Comment