Performance in Intel IOMeter
Sequential Read & Write Patterns
IOMeter is sending a stream of read and write requests with a request queue depth of 4. The size of the requested data block is changed each minute so that we could see the dependence of the drive’s sequential read/write speed on the size of the data block. This test is indicative of the maximum speed the drive can achieve.
The numeric data can be viewed in tables. We will be discussing graphs and diagrams.
The read speed graphs suggest that the single-platter models are all ahead in terms of top speed. Take note that the Caviar Black and Caviar Blue A7 are not in that group. Frankly speaking, it is a surprise to see WD Blue drives ahead of Black ones. By the way, the Blue M9 is a single-platter drive after all. The difference between the Caviar Green ones is obvious, too: the new platter ensures a hefty advantage for the model with 32MB cache.
Three HDDs disappoint us. The old Seagate 7200.11 is not fast at small data chunks and slows down suddenly when reading large data blocks. The Samsung F2 does not process small data blocks quickly, either. The Hitachi 7K1000.C is also slow with small chunks of data, which is a shame as it falls behind the leading group there.
We see the HDDs have the same problems at writing as at reading. Besides, the Seagate 7200.12 suddenly has a lower top speed, being no better than its power-efficient cousin. Take note that the power-efficient drives with 500GB platters are almost as fast as the 7200RPM products of the previous generation. So, those seemingly slow HDDs are not so sluggish after all as such speed was considered absolutely normal just a year ago.