medhunter Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Great interaction, my friendsHere my score of which I am shyAny way, I'll try to disable write caching in my HDD , and post the results.. Edited February 2, 2009 by medhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Cluberti I have to disagree with you on your statement I have a slow drive. Here is a Link with my hard disk spec and it performance. So by Win7 Windows Experience Index my old Single Core P4 and 2 gigs of ram is better then my Quad Core P4 and 8 gigs of ram to run Win7. In reality which computer would you rather have my new computer or my old computer?I have also converted my hard drives to raid0 and guess what it still gets a 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 If you feel your drive is fast (even though the HDD tests say otherwise), then you need to file a bug with both Microsoft and Seagate to get it fixed. Just because a drive can seek or spin fast doesn't mean it's actually going to *perform* fast.Edit: Also, it does seem that the default jumper set up is indeed .... poorly chosen (thanks to accessdenied's keen eyes ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Access Denied Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I am not trying to insult anyone or ask a dumb question, but that link to your hard drive points out the drive is automatically set on the jumper to SATA I speeds and needs to be set to SATA II to see the actual 3.0 speeds. Have you correctly set the jumpers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) I havnt open up the case and would of hope that HP would of set them to 3. I will open up the case to see what the jumpers are set to and make the corrections. I converted my drive to raid to see if I could improve my score but it scores 3 either way. If the jumpers are not set to 3 then I Apologise for any confusion on my part. I will also retest the computer if I have to change the jumpers.My Computer SpecsFrom what I read in the test part was my Seagate 500 was faster then the WD 400 I have a IDE WD 320 with 8 mb cache and assume it specs are closed to the 400.I have filled a bug report with Microsoft about this. Edited February 3, 2009 by gunsmokingman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genec57 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 6.5, that being gaming graphics. Others were 7.1 except for graphics which was 7.9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_block Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 3.0 because of my 40 gig HDD parallel , its pretty old probably 5400 rpm , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 From what I read in the test part was my Seagate 500 was faster then the WD 400 I have a IDE WD 320 with 8 mb cache and assume it specs are closed to the 400.I have filled a bug report with Microsoft about this.No offense, but there are a number of other people with just this particular drive also scoring 3.0 on the tests, and they're failing due to the fact that the drive controller is just woefully inefficient once the drive is under load. It's good that you filed a bug, but it's a problem with the drive firmware, not Winsat - hopefully Seagate will fix it, but don't count on it (their track record for fixing drive build problems seems to be "ignore it, and it'll go away" lately, so.......). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) On My first install of Win7 and I had my drives in non raid, I had one drive that was approx 400gigs in size was not given a drive letter. I could not access that drive until I open up the diskmanagement and added the drive letter. On my second install of Win7 I lost acccess to a driveof approx 230 gig, I was able to add a drive letter to threw disk management. So I guess itthe manufactor fault that Win7 can not assign all correct drive letters. It funny how this problemdoes not show up on XP or Vista.Could you provide a link with the information about Seagate 7200.11 contoller being bad.I down loaded HD Tune and ran it on both my computers I have included 2 links with the results.From what I gather from the tests is my 7200.11 is better then my WDC, I could be wrong and ifI am, I will give myself 50 lashes with wet noodles.Old Computer ScoreNew Computer ScoreI was expecting some where between 5.5 and 6.5 for my new computer not the 3 I recieved. Edited February 10, 2009 by gunsmokingman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Now I have 2 Deskstar 7K1000 on ICH10R RAID 0 setup (First 2x 50GB) and it still scores a 6, with or without volume write back cache.I know that those drives have not the best seek times, but throughputs over 230MB/s I would expect a bit more . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Check your PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmokingman Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Got it and sent a replyOther Test ResultsHd Test 2 Old ComputerHD Test 2 New ComputerI still do not know if my HD are using the 1.5 or 3.0 interface. I sent a Email to HP and waitingfor a reply. Edited February 10, 2009 by gunsmokingman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Look, the tests you post are testing sequential read speeds with burst rate, and drive seek time (not actual time to do anything once the seek is done). They don't test any caching, random read and write, or anything else that would stress the firmware. Those tests are cosmetic at best - they mean nothing compared to the Winsat tests, which go deeper in testing the cache performance, read and write random speed on multiple size files, rather than just how fast the seek is or how fast you can sequentially stream a file (which should be fast on almost any drive).Again, I respectfully disagree - your testing methods are not thorough for accurately testing drive performance. They're a part of what a drive can do, but definitely not something that would take into account any of the above methods Winsat performs. Also note that you have older drives that are slower at these superficial tests that perform better - meaning they likely have better firmware and can handle the odd loads that the real world would give them better.I would seriously recommend opening an administrative command prompt and run winsat disk -v on both old and new disks, and see exactly where the discrepancy is. It's not random, I assure you - those older disks really are doing better at the winsat tests than the Seagate 500s.For example, I have a 250GB WD SATAII drive that scores a 5.5, and a winsat disk -v run shows this:C:\Windows\system32>winsat disk -vWindows System Assessment Tool...> Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 51.89 MB/s 5.4> Disk Random 16.0 Read 1.39 MB/s 3.4> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 11.715 ms 2.9> Latency: 95th Percentile 36.290 ms 2.5> Latency: Maximum 89.616 ms 7.7> Average Read Time with Random Writes 13.741 ms 2.8> Total Run Time 00:00:50.87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 ... - meaning they likely have better firmware and can handle the odd loads that the real world would give them better.Indeed, that must be the bottle neck in this case...EDIT: By the way, that's an ICH9R / G33 chipset, so the firmware of the RAID/ACHI controller must screwing up your score. I wonder what HP has t say about this, IF they even reply as you are using a OS that isn't supported by them.Here's mine:C:\Windows\system32>winsat disk -vWindows System Assessment Tool...> Disk Sequential 64.0 Read 191.74 MB/s 7.3> Disk Random 16.0 Read 2.68 MB/s 4.3> Average Read Time with Sequential Writes 8.030 ms 4.9> Latency: 95th Percentile 14.594 ms 5.1> Latency: Maximum 21.969 ms 7.9> Average Read Time with Random Writes 7.502 ms 5.2> Total Run Time 00:00:55.05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 EDIT: By the way, that's an ICH9R / G33 chipset, so the firmware of the RAID/ACHI controller must screwing up your score. I wonder what HP has t say about this, IF they even reply as you are using a OS that isn't supported by them.Note that a vast majority of folks using this specific drive model score 3.0 maximum, across a whole host of systems, so I doubt the controller is the root cause. Unless they're all using a ICH9R/G33's, which would be quite coincidental . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now