Articles: Storage

Bookmark and Share

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ]

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 of the average of ten runs of each test.

Of course, these benchmarks, and the subsequent PCMark Vantage, are not so crucial for server disks as such HDDs are meant for different applications and loads. Anyway, let’s compare the HDDs in such tests, too.

Some HDD models will not be tested in this and next tests for technical reasons.

Click here to see the complete PCMark 2004 results table.

The copying results are almost the same as in FC Test: the two newest generations of Seagate drives are in the lead (the Cheetah 15K.7 being the fastest of all) and the two HDDs with no deferred writing are at the bottom of the diagram. Take note that as soon as the server tests have been passed (they are highly sensitive to response time), the Seagate NS.2 takes a stable position somewhere in the middle of the standings table.

The Fujitsu MBA3 RC series cope well with booting Windows XP up. The Seagate 15K.7 is the only disk to squeeze in among them. The pair of HDDs with no deferred writing are the slowest again. Take note that this fact has a bigger effect on the results than the twice lower recording density of some of their opponents.

Fujitsu’s latest generation are the best at loading applications although it is the Maxtor that gets first place. The 73GB Seagate 15K.5 and the Hitachi 15K147 are still the slowest, and the Seagate NS.2 is slow, too.

There are some changes in the standings in the General Usage test: the Maxtor is first, the Seagate 15K.7 is second, followed by the same Fujitsu drives. And the losers are the same as in the previous test, too.

The test of scanning for viruses is highly sensitive to firmware algorithms. All of Fujitsu’s drives, including the old MAX3 RC, cope well with it. They are followed by the drives from Hitachi and Maxtor whereas Seagate’s team are poor in this test.

This test has no conflict with the controller’s driver, but its results are not interesting at all. The standings are the same as in the sequential writing test with sharply defined product generations (the 73GB Seagate 15K.5 is an exception).

Fujitsu’s HDDs enjoy the top three HDD scores. The Seagate 15K.7 is fourth and the Maxtor is fifth. The two losers have been poor throughout this benchmark.

Pages: [ 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 ]


Comments currently: 5
Discussion started: 10/26/09 06:40:26 AM
Latest comment: 10/28/09 06:08:59 PM

View comments

Add your Comment