Articles: Storage
 

Bookmark and Share

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

Performance in WinBench 99

With the help of a well-known WinBench99 test package we tested the performance of our hard disk drives when they were formatted as a single partition and as a 32GB logical partition. We ran the tests for both: FAT2 and NTFS file systems.

In the tables below the best results are highlighted with blue. I would like to draw your attention to the access time demonstrated by our drives. Maxtor 5000DV appeared to have a much higher access time value: about 5-6ms higher (on a single partition), which is about 40% lag behind the WD2500B007. This could have been caused by the fact that the HDD used in Maxtor’s external solution was set to work in a quiet mode, which definitely told on its performance in a number of cases. They probably did it because they really wanted to improve the acoustic characteristics of the external drive, or because they wanted to make sure that the HDD will not get overheated inside the case with not very efficient air circulation.

Let’s start our comparison from the USB 2.0 interface.

The graph above indicates that in FAT32 file system Maxtor 5000DV wins the race. It outperforms WD2500B007 in High-End Disk WinMark (which matters more for nominating the winner) and Business Disk WinMark tests.

In NTFS file system the performance of our drives slows down a bit, compared with what we have just seen in the previous case. The leadership stays with Maxtor 5000DV.

The hard disk drives tested only on the first 32GB of their storage capacity formatted for FAT32 results into a slight increase in the HDDs performance. We could call Maxtor 5000DV the winner, as it demonstrated the best results in High-End Disk Winmark and yielded a bit to the opponent in Business Disk Winmark.

The shift to NTFS file system leads to slower performance of both drives, though Maxtor 5000DV remains the leader here.

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

Discussion

Comments currently: 2
Discussion started: 02/29/04 11:55:36 PM
Latest comment: 12/19/14 10:25:36 AM

View comments

Add your Comment