HD Tune 3.00
|
HD Tune 3.00 Read Test
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
|
HD Tune 3.00 Write Test
|
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
This benchmark performs sequential read and write tests across the whole drive and displays the average, min and max. Because all drives are structured like disks, the data located towards the end of the drive (towards the edges), is more separated than the data located near the center, hence it takes less time to locate, read and write information to and from the drive. Since the drive is 1500 GB in size, 300 GB ends up being 20%. By setting the size to 20 % of the max, the drive uses the inside 20% of the disc thus bringing superior performance.
|
HD Tune 3.00 File Access Test
|
|
 |
 |
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
The file access test reads the speeds at which files with different block sizes can be accessed. Here you can see that the Barracuda has faster access times for all block sizes above approximately 16KB.
|
HD Tune 3.00 File Access Time
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB |
Velociraptor |
The Velociraptor beats the Barracuda by approximately 3.1 ms in access times. The 7.2 ms compared to the 10.3 ms in favor of the Velociraptor comes from the 10,000 RPM speed, however, the Barracuda performs admirably with small loss which would unnoticeable during sequential reads and writes.
DataMarck
|
DataMarck
|
|
 |
 |
|
Barracuda 7200.11 @ 300 GB Read |
Velociraptor |
DataMarck benchmark is very similar to HD Tune 3.00. Again we can see the 3.1 ms difference in access times between 7.6 for the Velociraptor versus the 10.7 for the Barracuda. The Barracuda, however, still manages to pull ahead of the Velociraptor by approximately 16 MB in read speeds across the whole drive.
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….
By the way, who needs a paging file these days, ram is plenty cheap, you might be well off using the faster drive part for something more useful
I have 5 of these drives. I did the test using partitions rather than resizing. I got the same bench mark on the disk as a whole (1.5tb) as I did when I partition to a 300 gb partition. I assume that is because there was no data on it. If I run the test on a HD that is partitioned with a 10-100 gb first partition with data on both second partitions and all have data then you see a 50% performance increase for the first (and smaller partition). My guess is there is no benefit to resizing over partitioning. Just make sure that the files on the second partition (backup files only) are not accessed at the same time as the first. So yes it seems the drives are an excellent bargain and if you deal with video a necessity.
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.”
What a load of rubbish.why would a person want to decrease the size of their hard drive? just partion it to 300gb. this is not a hack of a harddrive. scrap this article and put up something better.
Mike, you have missed the point of this article. It is meant to gain performance from your drive.
You make a very fabulous point. I hadn’t thought about it that way before. Interesting point.
first: primarily it is all about the acces times guys… you get 10.2ms AND high transfer speeds
second: when it is about the transfer speed you get the same results when not partitioning the last 1200gb