General Usage Performance (continued)

For the desktop side of things, we conclude with Office Productivity SYSMark 2002. The applications tested include:

Microsoft Word 2002
Microsoft Excel 2002,
Microsoft PowerPoint 2002
Microsoft Outlook 2002,
Microsoft Access 2002,
Netscape Communicator® 6.0
Dragon NaturallySpeaking Preferred v.5
WinZip 8.0
McAfee VirusScan 5.13.

Once again we only have the trace results for Office Productivity SYSMark 2002, but we use them to confirm our previous findings:

Office Productivity SYSMark 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 Atlas 10K IV (36GB U320 SCSI)

Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 (80GB PATA)

IBM Deskstar 180GXP (185.2GB PATA)

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

Western Digital Raptor BETA (36.7GB SATA)

Seagate Barracuda Serial ATA V (80GB SATA)

Seagate Barracuda ATA V (120GB PATA)











The Raptor sets another record, this time outpacing the Caviar by 122 I/O operations per second.

General Usage Performance AnandTech Forums Database Server Performance


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... Reply
  • FASE77 - Sunday, November 02, 2003 - link


    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.

  • Anonymous User - Sunday, August 03, 2003 - link

    But how is the reliablilty going to be, maybe its just me but western digital drives are notorious for being unreliable Reply
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, August 02, 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