Seagate and Western Digital 1TB Drives: Improved and Green
by Dave Robinet on November 26, 2007 7:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
WinRAR
We updated our WinRAR test methodology. We are now using a larger and more comprehensive directory structure (3 gigabytes, 302 files and 22 folders), and are using the "store" mode to eliminate the CPU as being a bottleneck in our testing. We repeat each test three times to ensure consistency. Our first WinRAR test takes our sample directory from the source WD Raptor drive and puts it in an archive on the test device. This is a good representation of a practical "write" test of the test device. We then take the newly created archive, and uncompress it on the same drive. The test therefore becomes a combination of read, write, and seek performance.
This is a very interesting result. As expected, the Samsung T166 turns in strong results compared to both the Western Digital and Seagate devices, but the real story is how poorly the Seagate 7200.11 performs in the second test. This is a real concern, as the pattern has been clear and consistent when it comes to tests involving both read and write operations. The Seagate 7200.11 clearly has a serious handicap in this regard. The Samsung T166 showed itself in previous tests to be an above-average performer, but even the Western Digital Caviar bests the Seagate by nearly 20%.
Nero Recode
Our Nero Recode test takes our Office Space DVD folder and shrinks it down to fit onto a single 4.5GB DVD. This test is highly dependent on the CPU, however, and given our newer test bed, previous results aren't directly comparable with these benchmarks.
Given earlier results, the fact that the drives are separated by only 5 seconds from top to bottom means that this test is more about stressing system components (i.e. the CPU) than working out the storage medium, although a fast hard drive is still valuable.
Company of Heroes
Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts is the latest installment in Relic's wildly popular WWII real time strategy series. For our test, we load the first campaign level (Wolfheze) and measure the time it takes to display the "press any key" message. To ensure test consistency, we are using the base installation of Opposing Fronts without keeping current with Relic's frequent patching.
Here we see a narrowing of the performance results, though the drives continue to show results consistent with our earlier benchmarks. The T166 edges the Seagate drive very slightly, while the Western Digital Caviar GP trails the pack.
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander is the second of our gaming benchmarks for this article. For this test, we measure the time it takes to load the first Campaign level, starting the timer when we click the launch icon and ending when the commander is visible and stationary on the ground.
Our benchmark shows that there is very little load time differential between the fastest and slowest hard drives tested. Games such as this remain a difficult task for conventional hard drives, as they rely to such a large degree on seek times. The results, however, continue to rank the drives as before.
31 Comments
View All Comments
jojo4u - Monday, November 26, 2007 - link
IBM is varying the spindle speed (Low RPM Standby mode). But only after quite an amount of idle. http://www.silentpcreview.com/article304-page2.htm...">http://www.silentpcreview.com/article304-page2.htm...