Hitachi vs. Western Digital vs. Seagate: A Battle of the Mammoths
by Purav Sanghani on December 2, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Storage
HDTach - Sequential Read Speed/Burst Speed
The HDTach benchmark gives us a great deal of detail on the performance of a hard drive. Like the WinBench 99 Transfer Rate test, HDTach graphs the sequential read speed of the drive as the drive reads continuously from beginning to end.
Seagate 500GB 7200.9
Hitachi 7K500
Western Digital WD4000YR
Windows Read Speed Test
Seagate 500GB 7200.9
Hitachi 7K500
Western Digital WD4000YR
The HDTach benchmark gives us a great deal of detail on the performance of a hard drive. Like the WinBench 99 Transfer Rate test, HDTach graphs the sequential read speed of the drive as the drive reads continuously from beginning to end.
Click to enlarge.
Click to enlarge.
Click to enlarge.
Windows Read Speed Test
It seems the Windows Read Speed Test gives us a better readout of the actual transfer rates of each drive. We see that the Seagate and Hitachi read speeds are off the charts because of their 3.0Gb/sec maximum transfer rate. The WD4000YR is a 1.5Gb/sec drive which is why the transfer rate is much lower than the 7K500's 200MB/sec+ rate.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
Visual - Saturday, December 3, 2005 - link
i cant imagine what error would hang my drive for 8 seconds :/ and if it really happened, even in recoverable error, i'd not trust that drive again anyway. so it'd be better to mark it "failed"Lakeshow - Saturday, December 3, 2005 - link
Yeah I read that article on storagereview.com couple days after I got my WD4000YR and it kind of bothers me.Oh well, what are you gonna do? I absolutely love this drive. I can only hope this drive will live until my next voluntary upgrade.
Lifted - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
The HD Tach screenshots say "for non-commercial or evaluation use only, see license agreement."Hmmmmm. Anandtech is non-commercial?
Gannon - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
I'd like to see more tests done on drives that are at least 80% full because a lot of us pack our drives full of stuff and the performance we end up getting is when we've filled it. While these tests are good and all, I think they inflate the actual scores of how a drive is really used. No drive sits with just XP and a game or two and a couple of test files, that bias's the tests toward unrealistic use of how hard disks are used, especially big ones over 160GB. I fill my drives regularly and I have over 800GB needless to say I'm backing up stuff to DVD's just to have enough space to perform other operations.WileCoyote - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
Why does everyone want Anandtech to benchmark their current system? Run your own benchmark if you want to know the speed of your hard-drive/computer. I think the articles here are perfect - they help me decide what to purchase in the future. I don't need an article to make me feel good about what I already have. I like the current format of articles that educate me on my next purchase.johnsonx - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
time to cut down on the pron addictionOlaf van der Spek - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
> We were also surprised to see the WD4000YR perform so well, since it is using the 1 st generation 1.5Gb/sec interface.That's a joke, right?
I hope you weren't really expecting a significant performance improvement from a faster interface (300 mbyte/s instead of 150 mbyte/s while HDD's are more near 75 mbyte/s and only during seqential access).
bob661 - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
I think the interface increases benefit RAID performance more than singledrive performance.Olaf van der Spek - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
I don't think so, as (without involvement of port multipliers) SATA is a point to point architecture.yacoub - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link
Or you can go buy a pair of 200GB Samsung SpinPoint SP2004C drives for under $100 each and have a much quieter drive setup. :)