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 time how long 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 160GB 78.624 65.715 19.6%
Seagate 7200.9 160GB (2-Drive, RAID-0) 68.546 58.693 16.8%
Hitachi T7K250 160GB 79.815 65.641 21.6%
Samsung HD160JJ 160GB 73.554 61.068 20.4%
Western Digital WD1600JS 160GB 74.371 61.182 21.6%
Seagate 7200.9 500GB 69.512 59.785 16.3%

Real World Tests - Application Load Times

In our Application Load Time tests, we measure the time that it takes for each application to startup. For example, our benchmarking tool begins the stopwatch as soon as PhotoShopCS.exe is run and stops after the application has finished loading all of the plug-ins and filters and shuts down. We take the average of 3 runs with system reboots and hard disk defragmentations before each test run.

Application Load Times (average, seconds)
PhotoShop CS Word 2003 Excel 2003 Access 2003 PowerPoint 2003
Seagate 7200.9 160GB 7.454 1.109 1.125 .968 1.109
Seagate 7200.9 160GB (2-Drive, RAID-0) 7.544 1.171 1.140 1.125 1.000
Hitachi T7K250 160GB 7.984 2.375 2.609 2.766 2.109
Samsung HD160JJ 160GB 8.601 2.554 2.887 3.115 2.245
Western Digital WD1600JS 160GB 8.938 2.469 2.562 2.484 2.438
Seagate 7200.9 500GB 8.024 1.687 1.718 1.640 1.593

The higher density platters of the 160GB unit prove to perform slightly faster when loading the Office 2003 application suite as well as the Photoshop CS imaging software. RAID-0 does not help here at all, but does very little to hurt.

Game Level Load Times

Our Game Level Loading Time tests include two of the latest games: Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. Because of their high resolution textures and the large levels, the loading time for the levels of each game are long enough to help show a difference between each drive.

We have also included an older strategy game, Command & Conquer: Generals, because of its longer level load times as well. Though the game is a couple of years old, it still proves to be a good measure of data loading performance.

Doom 3 Level Loading Performance

Half-Life 2 Level Loading Performance

Command & Conquer Generals Level Loading Performance

Real World Tests Thermal and Acoustics


View All Comments

  • Orbs - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    If you have a large, PATA backup drive, then the chance of failure issue really isn't that big a deal, especially with the longer warranties (Raptors are enterprise class products for WD, aren't they?).

    The interesting question to me is, does performance increase with 10,000 RPMs, SATA bandwidth AND increased platter density.

    I believe the Raptors aren't 3.0 GB/s SATA but they still should have plenty of room to run, and if I remember correctly, the 150 GB Raptors gained their extra space by a higher density platter than the 74 GB version.

    Now that's a setup that might be worth $600. It all depends if it lives up to the potential. AnandTech, let's get a SATA RAID-0 Shoot Out going!!
  • Orbs - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    Oh, and in general, great articles lately :) Reply
  • DS Delaroca - Friday, January 27, 2006 - link

    i think he means the new raptors WD1500ADFD 150GB on a raid setup. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now