Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

(4) 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 ]

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 discuss 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 results can be learned from the table. The PCMark 2005 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. You can check the detailed results table for PCMark 2004 here.

The test of copying from PCMark 2004 names the same losers as FC-Test. We also see three leaders: the Black and Blue V1 from Western Digital together with the Samsung F3.

The four 7200RPM drives from WD and the Seagate 7200.12 are contending for top places in these tests. The Hitachi 7K1000.C is no good at all as it can only compete with the power-efficient products.

Scanning for viruses puts Seagate’s new models on top, but their predecessor takes last place.

The Samsung F3 is incredibly fast in this test. We know it is good at writing files, but it just can’t be faster than the sequential read speed! Otherwise, the picture is trivial: the single-platter 7200RPM drives are ahead of the previous-generation models which, in their turn, are challenged by the new power-efficient products.

The Samsung 7200.12, WD Black and Samsung F3 occupy the podium. The Seagate LP is surprisingly fast while the Hitachi 7K1000.C is, on the contrary, poor.

 
Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 ]

Discussion

Comments currently: 4
Discussion started: 05/04/10 08:24:51 PM
Latest comment: 05/06/10 05:52:50 PM

View comments

Add your Comment