Real World Tests - Multitasking Performance

To provide a real world example of multitasking, we run Outlook and import 450MB of emails into an account. We then measure the time that it takes our benchmarking utility to zip a single 300MB file. To compare our results, we calculate the difference between the multitasked process and the single task file zip process.

Outlook + Zip a 300MB File Within Drive
Multitasked File Zip Only % Difference
Seagate 7200.9 500GB, 16MB, 3.0GB/sec 69.215 59.707 15.9%
Hitachi 7K500, 16MB, 3.0GB/sec 70.512 62.156 13.4%
Western Digital WD1600JS 69.25 61.443 12.7%


The WD4000YR looks like it performs the best out of the three while running multiple tasks but only by a second or two. It zips a 300MB file while importing emails in Outlook about 12.7% slower than just performing the file zip operation on its own while the Hitachi and Seagate drives handle this task 13.4-15.9% slower.

Real World Tests Real World Tests - Application Load Times
Comments Locked

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 addiction
  • Olaf 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. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now