Testing
Now that the set up is complete,
I ran benchmarks on the Barracuda 7200.11 across two different sizes: 819 GB and 300 GB. Both tests were extremely impressive and demonstrated performance marks which greatly surpassed any drive in its class. Without further adieu I present you the results.
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB Vs Velociraptor
Crystal Disk Mark 2.1
This particular software measures the speeds of random and sequential reads and writes across a section of the drive and outputs the average result. There is a total of 4 section consisting of 50 MB, 100 MB, 500 MB, and 1000 MB across which the program reads or writes.
|
CrystaDiskMark 2.1 50 MB Test
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
|
CrystaDiskMark 2.1 100 MB Test
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
|
CrystaDiskMark 2.1 500 MB Test
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
|
CrystaDiskMark 2.1 1000 MB Test
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
The Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 left the Velociraptor in the dust by outperforming it in essentially all the categories of comparison with the exception of the 4K random write. The reason why the Velociraptor is better than the Barracuda in this particular test is generally due to Velociraptor’s lower access times, however if you de fragment your drive or the data which you read or write is sequential (most of the time it is) then the Barracuda definitely wins this one.
It’s interesting to find how challenging the content side is for some
Valuable thoughts and advices. I read your topic with great interest.
Wow, what a lengthy and in depth article but full of useful information
Will partitioning the HD and making the C drive the first partition with 300GB of space have the same effect – the increased speed – while letting you also set up partitions to use the rest of the drive for storage?
I was wondering the same thing. I would much rather partition my drive if that would yield similar results.
The is a no brainer, for the OS disk I always run HDTach and find where the transfer rate of a new disk starts to drop, and that is the OS partition and the rest is occasional access storage. My current partitions on a 1GB are OS 244GB, storage 687GB. For the same reason you can put your page file on a second disk in a hidden partition at the beginning of the disk for just the page file, so it will never get fragmented and it is on the fastest part of the disk.
i agree with that ,this is what i do….
Hi, I have done this right now, but shortly after entering and confirming the LBA-number I noticed that text and picture number does NOT match (589080586 vs 586080586) I used 589080586 (which gave me 301.609GB) as its in the text… does this make any difference? Is the right number of LBA a really magic number or is it more like “around 300 GB”?
thanks
Martin
I’d like to know as well. I get the same.
How magic is the magic number? Is it an estimate closest to 300 or definitive and will give less performance with the extra sectors perhaps?
What if the aforesaid method was applied to the new 2TB Seagate Barracuda XT ST32000641AS, complete with a 64MB cache.
Would this be faster than the modified Seagate Barracuda 1.5 collapsed into 300GB hard drive, if so? How much faster?
Cordially,
Christian Ramdeholl
“The truth is the LBA mod has absolutely no effect on the transfer rate of the drive. Whatever benchmark “improvements” TechwareLabs showed are illusory, a matter of perception rather than reality. The hard disk drive’s transfer rate profile will remain the same, whether you perform the “LBA mod”, create multiple partitions or leave it as a single giant partition.”