Pure Hard Disk Performance - IPEAK

We begin our usual hard disk drive test session with Intel's IPEAK benchmarking utility. We first run a trace capture on Winstone 2004's Business and Multimedia Content Creation benchmark runs to catch all of the IO operations that take place during each test. We then play back each capture using RankDisk, which reports back to us a mean service time, or average time that the drive takes to complete an IO operation.

IPEAK Business Winstone 2004 - Pure Hard Disk Performance

The 500GB Seagate’s 541 IO operations per second is no match for the 7K500 and WD4000YR drives at 746 and 769 IO operations per second under the Business Winstone 2004 IPEAK capture. We were also surprised to see the WD4000YR perform so well, since it is using the 1 st generation 1.5Gb/sec interface.

Let's take a look at Content Creation performance.

IPEAK Content Creation Winstone 2004 - Pure Hard Disk Performance

Again, Seagate does not do well in the Content Creation portion of the Winstone 2004 IPEAK capture. Western Digital comes out on top at about 505 IO operations per second with the 7K500 following at 458 IO operations per second.

IPEAK Average Read Service Time

The mean read service time reported by IPEAK’s AnalyzeDisk is the time that it takes for a request to be fulfilled by the drive. Even the IPEAK service times reported are far from being in favor of the 500GB 7200.9 at 13.9ms. The 7K500 takes 1 st place here with 12.821ms and 2 nd place is taken by the WD4000YR at 13.060ms.

The Test WinBench 99 - Transfer Rate Test
Comments Locked

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • bjacobson - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    Anandtech is such a great site. Seems like every other day theres a new benchmark or review of some sort. Far more stuff comes out from AT than many other tech sites. Thanks Anand.
  • johnsonx - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    Anandtech does have more new articles per week than most sites, aside from THG. Unlike THG though, Anandtech's articles are quite well thought out, written, and supported. THG's flood of articles every week is more like a bad case of the $hits.
  • Visual - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    AT, it might be good to include a link to your 7200.9 article ( The so-called mouth-watering failure, http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=25...">http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=25... ) and maybe if you've done separate reviews for the other drives link them too in the first page of this one.
    And this reminds me, we haven't yet seen a review of the highest-density 7200.9, the 160GB model. Nor the 133gb/platter 400gb drive :/

    But yeah I know I shouldn't complain, I should just google for reviews by other sites.
  • PuravSanghani - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    We are currently working on getting our hands on a 160GB 7200.9 unit with the 160GB platters; hopefully within the next month or so.

    Regards,
    Purav
  • Zar0n - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    Thanx 4 the review, but in the last benchmark, acoustics, u should remove the legend to the bottom so that the bars expanded, and it's easy to see the difference between all drives.

    Waiting for Maxtor DiamondMax 11 to chose the best drive :)
  • Slaimus - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    It is fairly uncommon for HD manufacturers to release updated firmware after the fact, but that might be what the other drives need.
  • irev210 - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    firmware aint gunna help these drives.

    They are all very fast drives... just that the 400gb wd stands out because of its raptor heritage.
  • irev210 - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    From what I read at storage review, the 400gb western digital has the same chipset/technology as the 10k raptor, just with 100gb plattersx4. That is why you see such high I/O scores.

    I picked up two 400gb RE's (raid edition) to back up my data in a 400x2 raid 1. I couldnt be more pleased with the price/performance. The 400gb drives boast a 1.2 million hours MTBF, which seems pretty impressive for such an inexpensive drive. The motor looks rather large compared to other units, but i was too chicken to take apart my new drives to inspect.

    What really bothers me is that anandtech rounded up the T7k250gb 160gb version which uses different platters than the T7k250 250gb. The 250gb uses 2x125gb platters which greatly improves performance over the 160gb.


    For me, I use the T7k250 250gbx2 in a raid0 SATA 3.0gb/sec with the option of adding 2 more for much better performance and space in a raid0

    for data, I use 400gbx2 raid 1


    the best part is, I have lots of room to grow. I can grow to a 1tb main array and a 800gb data array.

    I hope to see anandtech tackle some more hard drives! The 400gb western digital is an absolute STEAL at the price.
  • karioskasra - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    How would the WD perform in RAID1 when compared vs the other drives in RAID1? You hinted at it possibly being slower when striped, but how big is the difference? Does it maintain the lead over the other two when striped, or is it outperformed?
  • Cygni - Friday, December 2, 2005 - link

    Makes me chuckle that a 1.5Gbps drive dominated the 3.0's. Not a surprise at all. ATA133 isnt even maxed out by these drives, let alone a SATA150 connection. Kinda reminds me of AGP... or PCI... or pretty much most of the standards these days getting replaced by "better faster must have!" standards that cost the end user money and offer no real improvement in performance.

    Hey, gotta keep selling boards, i guess.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now