Performance in FC-Test
For this test two 32GB partitions are created on the disk and formatted in NTFS and then in FAT32. After that a file-set is created. It is then read from the disk, copied within the same partition and then copied into another partition. The time taken to perform these operations is measured and the speed of the disk is calculated. The Windows and Programs file-sets consist of a large number of small files whereas the other three patterns (ISO, MP3, and Install) include a few large files each.
We’d like to note that the copying test is indicative of the drive’s behavior under complex load. In fact, the HDD is working with two asynchronous threads (one for reading and one for writing) when copying files.
We will only discuss the NTFS data because the standings are generally the same in FAT32. You can use the link below to view the FAT32 results:
We don’t see anything awful when it comes to creating files under real-life conditions. The standings are the same as you might have predicted: the drive with eSATA is in the lead, the FireWire interface is second, and the three drives with USB interface are the slowest. However, the speed of writing of the eSATA interface is too low. 35.86MBps is not what you expect from a modern drive when processing large files across an interface that does not limit the drive’s performance! Here, it may be the HDD’s rather than the interface controller’s fault. Just take a look at the results of Seagate’s 1-terabyte drives in our older review.
It is all right with reading. Of course, the speeds are far from what we’ve seen in the synthetic tests, but FC-Test is more real-life because it not only accesses the hard disk but reads files of certain size from it.
The drives do not show anything exceptional when copying files (within the same partition or between two partitions). The XTreme with eSATA is far ahead, followed by the FireWire. The USB drives are all slower and have similar speeds among themselves.