Performance in PCMark 2004/2005

PCMark 2005 has the same tests as the 2004 version (not only in names, but also in results as we have seen a lot of times), so we only use one test from PCMark 2004 which is not available in the 2005 version. It is called File Copying and measures the speed of copying some set of files.  The other tests are: Windows XP Startup is the typical disk subsystem load at system startup; Application Loading is the disk activity at sequential starting-up and closing of six popular applications; General Usage reflects the disk activity in a number of popular applications; File Write is about the speed of writing files; and Virus Scan benchmarks the disk’s performance at scanning the system for viruses. The final result is the average of ten runs of each test.

The File Copying test produces about the same results as FC-Test. The WD RE3 and Hitachi E7K1000 are in the lead. Third place goes to the WD Caviar Green with 32MB cache – this sprightly fellow leaves a number of 7200rpm models behind, including the WD Caviar Black. It is interesting to watch the progress of the Green drives: the transition from four to three platters gives them about 11MBps in this test (the increased recording density doesn’t have such a strong effect with Seagate’s drives, but they are no good for making comparisons because the two 7200.11 series models have very different firmware) and the enlarged buffer adds 16MBps more.

The Hitachi E7K1000 is somewhat better than the others at booting up Windows XP although the 3-platter 7200rpm drives all go close to each other, and even the Seagate nearly joins their group. The 5400rpm models find it more difficult to boot the OS up: the increased recording density doesn’t provide much advantage here but the model with larger buffer delivers somewhat higher performance. The SV35.3 is poor again. It is no competitor to the other 1TB drives.

WD’s RE3 and Caviar Black are in the lead when loading applications, but the Hitachi E7K1000 has nestled in between them. The latter is again much better than the Hitachi 7K1000.B which even falls behind its 5-platter ancestor in this test. Its 16MB buffer is a limitation after all. The WD Caviar Green with 32MB cache performs superbly. It joins the group of 7200rpm drives, outpacing both models from Samsung. Seagate’s three models can only compete with the a-priori slower Green models from WD.

The standings don’t change much in the General Usage test. The Hitachi E7K1000 is one step lower while the 16MB Hitachi has rolled back in the group of 7200rpm drives. The WD Caviar Green 32MB is still in that group, too. This model delivers an outstanding performance really.

Hitachi’s two new drives have no rivals when scanning files for viruses – they put their cache memory to a very good use. Next go three more models: the good result of the WD RE3 might be expected while the high performance of the WD Caviar Green and Seagate SV35.3 is only due to their firmware. As for the latter drive, it is the second time in this review that it leaves last places.

The pair of new drives from Hitachi is in the lead when writing files. Seagate’s 3-platter model is third. This brand’s HDDs find it a shame to lose in sequential operations even though they are far from brilliant in other tests. The Caviar Black is surprisingly a loser. Something is wrong with its writing. Take note of the WD Green series: the increased recording density provides an obvious effect here.

Judging by the overall HDD scores of PCMark 2005, the Hitachi E7K1000 is the best 1-terabyte drive for a desktop PC. The WD RE3 and Hitachi 7K1000.B are better than the other 3-platter drives, too.

And once again we want to single out the WD Caviar Green with 32MB buffer. Notwithstanding its lower spindle rotation speed, it is as fast as 3-platter 7200rpm drives.