HD Tach 3.01
MTRON 32GB MSP 7000
Western Digital Raptor 150GB
Our HD Tach test results heavily favor the MTRON unit in all aspects except the burst rates. The MTRON's sustained transfer rate of 108.5MB/sec is about 43% better than the WD Raptor drive at 75.5MB/sec. The biggest difference is the MTRON drive holds the 108MB/sec transfer rate across the entire drive while the Raptor progressively decreases to around 52MB/sec at the end of the drive. The previous MTRON STR results were 95.1MB/sec, which is about 13% slower than the new drive. The burst rates of the Raptor at 128.8MB/sec are slightly higher than the 115.7MB/sec rates on the MTRON drive, but burst rates are not nearly as large of a factor as other indicators. Access times greatly favors the MTRON drive at .1ms compared to 8.4ms on the Raptor drive.
HD Tune 2.54
MTRON 32GB MSP 7000
Western Digital Raptor 150GB
The difference is slightly lower overall with HD Tune versus HD Tach, but the story remains the same. In our HD Tune test, the Raptor's sustained transfer rate of 72.1MB/sec is around 30% lower than the MTRON MSP 7000 SSD drive at 102.8MB/sec. More importantly is the fact that the MTRON drive again holds the 102MB/sec transfer rate across the entire drive while the Raptor progressively decreases to 50.4MB/sec at the end of the drive. The previous MTRON STR results were 90.8MB/sec, which is about 12% slower than the new drive. The burst rates of the Raptor at 100.6MB/sec are about 12% better compared to the MTRON unit. Access time greatly favors the MTRON.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
48 Comments
View All Comments
MrPickins - Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - link
What about SAS Cheetah drives?I know it's not exactly the same, but it still uses SATA.
odiHnaD - Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - link
ATA and SCSI are two very different bus transfer protocols with very specific feature sets. (hence the reason SATA is generally consumer based and SAS is server/enterprise based). Suffice to say: SAS does not use SATA,SATA = Serial Advanced Technology Attachment
SAS = Serial Attached SCSI
other than the fact that they use a similar connector and that they are now transferring bytes in a serial fashion instead of a parallel fashion does not make them the "same".
ChronoReverse - Wednesday, December 5, 2007 - link
They're more similar than you'd think. While SAS devices can't be used on a SATA controller, SATA devices can be used with a SAS controller.Etern205 - Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - link
Their expensive way out of the consumer price range.Griswold - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link
Uhh... could as well just call your SSD "Raptor" or "Bi-Turbo" if you think the name makes it run faster... :]microAmp - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link
Must be using 56k to upload pictures... :PGary Key - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link
Sorry about that, not only did the images show in the new engine, but so did the last three paragraphs that disappeared in the released article. I think this new engine has it out for me. ;)JarredWalton - Monday, December 3, 2007 - link
Sorry about that... some issues with the new content system. Gary used the engine to insert images, they show up in the admin view, but the URL missed out on the http://images.anandtech.com/">http://images.anandtech.com/ part. All is fixed now, and you can return to your regularly scheduled reading. :)