| Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001 |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Storage | |
| Written by Olin Coles | |
| Tuesday, 01 November 2011 | |
|
Page 6 of 10
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 TestsCrystalDiskMark 3.0 is a file transfer and operational bandwidth benchmark tool from Crystal Dew World that offers performance transfer speed results using sequential, 512KB random, and 4KB random samples. For our test results chart below, the 4KB 32-Queue Depth read and write performance was measured using a 1000MB space. CrystalDiskMark requires that an active partition be set on the drive being tested, and all drives are formatted with NTFS on the Intel P67 chipset configured to use AHCI-mode. Benchmark Reviews uses CrystalDiskMark to illustrate operational IOPS performance with multiple threads. In addition to our other tests, this benchmark allows us to determine operational bandwidth under heavy load. Using CrystalDiskMark, both the Seagate Barracuda XT ST33000651AS (five-platter) and new Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001 (three-platter) offered very consistent test results. Again, both hard drives produced very similar test scores. After comparing the results, it appears that the new Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001 (three-platter) hard drive once again shows a small speed advantage. The read and write speeds were just a few MB/s faster with the new Seagate Barracuda ST3000DM001, delivering 3 MB/s faster reads and writes.
Seagate Barracuda XT 3TB Hard Drive ST33000651AS (Five-Platter)
Seagate Barracuda 3TB Hard Drive ST3000DM001 (Three-Platter)In the next section, we continue our testing using Iometer to measure input/output performance...
|
|
Comments
One of the things I wanted to do was test using real files. I chose to use a folder with 6GB of jpg/RAW/and video files. I then compressed that entire folder into a solid RAR archive and tested with that as well. Synthetic benches are fun, but real world file transfers can tell a different story.
All in all a tight review, but I'm wondering why you didn't test the drive using real files, say reading from an SSD and writing to it?
Still, I get your point, and I also wish there was a way to use a standardized set of test files, that everyone could agree on.
I suppose you could save those same files and use them to test other drives also, albeit, with the same drive and rig set up. Or, one could test a number of drives using the same files on any rig, as long as the host drive, to prevent bottlenecking, is faster than the drive being tested. That SSD Olin tested recently would have been a good contender for the host drive, since it is the fastest SSD currently commercially available to the public.