Performance in WinBench 99

Here are the arrays’ data-transfer graphs recorded in WinBench 99:

• Data-transfer graph for Hitachi T7K500, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Hitachi T7K500, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Hitachi T7K500, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Samsung T166S, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Samsung T166S, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Samsung T166S, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda 7200.10, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda 7200.10, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda 7200.10, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda ES, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda ES, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda ES, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda ES.2, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda ES.2, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Seagate Barracuda ES.2, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Western Digital RE2, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Western Digital RE2, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Western Digital RE2, RAID5

• Data-transfer graph for Western Digital RE3, RAID0
• Data-transfer graph for Western Digital RE3, RAID10
• Data-transfer graph for Western Digital RE3, RAID5

The following diagram compares the arrays by the read speed at the beginning and end of the partitions created on them.

Everything is quite logical here except that the results of the Seagate ES.2 in RAID5 are lower than those of its desktop counterpart. As for the Western Digital RE3, we can say that its recording density is indeed higher than that of its opponents. Anyway, recording density along would not have helped it win most of our tests (you can remember that the three-platter Western Digital RE2 was often as fast as the two-platter Seagate ES.2, for example).