General Usage Performance

Although not as performance-critical as content creation applications, it is the set of every day applications like Office and other general usage programs that the majority of users find themselves interacting with the most and also happen to be very disk intensive, after all, here's where most users find themselves complaining about I/O performance.

We start with VeriTest's Business Winstone 2002:

The Business Winstone tests are "market-centered" tests. Business applications are the popular applications employed by most users every day.

Five Microsoft Office 2002 applications (Access, Excel, FrontPage, PowerPoint, and Word)
Microsoft Project 2000
Lotus Notes
WinZip 8.0
Norton AntiVirus
Netscape Communicator

We start out by isolating all of the disk accesses that take place during a run of the benchmark and running them on each of the individual drives:

Business Winstone 2002 Disk Performance
Performance in I/O Operations per Second (Higher is better)
Western Digital Raptor WD360 (36.7GB SATA)

Western Digital Caviar WD1200JB (120GB PATA)

Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 (80GB PATA)

IBM Deskstar 180GXP (185.2GB PATA)

Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (36.7GB U320 SCSI)

Seagate Barracuda ATA V (120GB PATA)

Maxtor Atlas 10K IV (36GB U320 SCSI)

Seagate Barracuda Serial ATA V (80GB SATA)

Western Digital Raptor BETA (36.7GB SATA)

781

658

581

538

472

448

444

400

332

|
0
|
156
|
312
|
469
|
625
|
781
|
937

The production continues to do very well, setting a new record for our Business Winstone 2002 Disk Performance test of 781 I/O operations per second, a full 19% faster than the Special Edition Caviar and over a 2x improvement over the beta drive we tested.

Business Winstone 2002 System Performance
Performance in Winstones (Higher is better)
IBM Deskstar 180GXP (185.2GB PATA)

Western Digital Raptor WD360 (36.7GB SATA)

Western Digital Caviar WD1200JB (120GB PATA)

Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 (80GB PATA)

Seagate Barracuda Serial ATA V (80GB SATA)

Seagate Barracuda ATA V (120GB PATA)

Maxtor Atlas 10K IV (36GB U320 SCSI)

Seagate Cheetah 10K.6 (36.7GB U320 SCSI)

Western Digital Raptor BETA (36.7GB SATA)

35.3

35.1

34.8

34.8

34.2

34.1

33.4

31.8

30.1

|
0
|
7
|
14
|
21
|
28
|
35
|
42

The real world performance of the Raptor ends up being on par with the 180GXP and the WD1200JB, much better than the poor showing of the first drive we tested.

Content Creation Performance (continued) General Usage Performance (continued)
Comments Locked

7 Comments

View All Comments

  • rhinofishing1 - Monday, November 17, 2003 - link

    I have a AOpen AX4SPE-Max Motherboard which has SATA and Raid support. I was thinking about getting 2 of these drives and setting them at Raid 0 for my system drive. I plan on doing a lot of video editing and using a 200GB drive for my A/V content on a regular IDE master channel. Do you see any problems, or have any suggestions with my setup? Thanks in advance...
  • FASE77 - Sunday, November 2, 2003 - link

    Hi

    I have a WD800JB and WD1200JB, i'm really glad to see the WD1200JB performing too well in the test, the only thing I don’t like about the drive is that it has no heat sensor! unlike my older Seagate Barracuda drive (ST360021A).

    I really hope Western Digital will start embedding heat sensors into their drives soon.
  • mrHand - Thursday, October 30, 2003 - link

    Re: Post on Aug 3, 2003: I have never had a Western Digital drive lose a single bit of my data. Other manufacturers, yes, but not this one.

    I have a WDC1600JB that walks all over this SATA drive (I bought one and tried it out). Anybody had a different experience? It could be a BIOS setting...
  • mrHand - Thursday, October 30, 2003 - link

  • Anonymous User - Monday, August 25, 2003 - link

    Please compare Raptor single drive performance with two Raptors in a Raid 0 configuration. Please compare also with two PATA drives in Raid 0 configuration.


    Is there a problem with excessive heat being generated by these units.

    Thanks.
  • Anonymous User - Sunday, August 3, 2003 - link

    But how is the reliablilty going to be, maybe its just me but western digital drives are notorious for being unreliable
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, August 2, 2003 - link

    I have a question about write caches: I have read that many SCSI drives do not by default enable their write caches (enterprise may want safety over performance). Are the two 10K SCSI drives in this article run with their write caches enabled to make the comparison more fair? Given the dramatic increase in the SATA drive's performance with write caching, it could be a significant factor.

    Another comment: WD's drives looks more like the next generation high performance desktop drive, not a low-cost enterprise alternative to SCSI. Perhaps the follow up benchmarks (4 months in the making?) will shed light on this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now