hmm i dunno MM, i'm using Vista and esata plug on evga 680i but esata disabled so it shouldn't be that. gonna give the new Vista RAID/SATA Driver v9.92 on Vista a try, using Vista default drivers atm
Printable View
hmm i dunno MM, i'm using Vista and esata plug on evga 680i but esata disabled so it shouldn't be that. gonna give the new Vista RAID/SATA Driver v9.92 on Vista a try, using Vista default drivers atm
i just noticed, why your drive doesnt report temps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachi_Roku
it looks like bad driver or...
i Have Vista, and for some strange reason, Vista thinks that my sata drives are Fibre Channel, so it doeasnt read SMART. But other that that it works 100%
Mad Man & Hachi Roku: Are you using x86 or x64 Vista?
Here is an update of the score, taken from the best of 3.
Similar to my previous one but a little better in write/read but burst rate is lower. I don't know which is more important for day to day multi-task and gaming..
This time I'm not using the newest Intel Matrix Storage driver - 7.50.1017. I use Vista x64 based 8.10.xxxx AHCI driver and the HD seems not able to get the 110 burst rate as before but a little faster read/write speed. Access time is around the same.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...u/HDBench2.jpg
Vista Ultimate 32bit on nForce 590sli based moboQuote:
Originally Posted by XtremeTiramisu
4 x WD 74gb raptors in raid0
http://www.zaimc.com/temp/hdtune1.jpg
http://www.zaimc.com/temp/4x74gbraptorsraid0.jpg
seagate 750gb
http://www.zaimc.com/temp/hdtune2.jpg
WD 250GB NF6
http://users.skynet.be/fa664233/HD_Tach_WD2500JS.jpg
Quote:
Mad_Man
i just noticed, why your drive doesnt report temps?
it looks like bad driver or...
i Have Vista, and for some strange reason, Vista thinks that my sata drives are Fibre Channel, so it doeasnt read SMART. But other that that it works 100%
using Vista x64. not really sure why it doesn't read smart MM. updated to Nvidia v9.92 Sata/Raid Controller with no real change in performance.Quote:
XtremeTiramisu
Mad Man & Hachi Roku: Are you using x86 or x64 Vista?
hmm, I'm glad I've chosen the WD5000AAKS instead of the 500GB Seagate 7200.10. On a side note, my 320GB Seagate 7200.10 was defective just over a year so I just bought the WD5000AAKS and to my surprised, it's preety fast for a single HD in AHCI. Avg 60+ transfer speed and anywhere from 108~110 burst rate :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachi_Roku
Did you make sure that your drive doesn't have any bad sectors??
Are you one IDE or AHCI? maybe you should try AHCI on VISTA ;)
My 74GB Raptor
http://danny.yalittlehorsey.com/benc...s/hddbench.jpg
Pretty bold claim there, let's forget for a moment that I have raptors. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by -Acid-
The benchmarks I've seen indicate an advantage in single user performance with raid0 raptor 150GB drives, do note these are faster drives than the smaller raptors.
the reason is of course that maus are made with server performance in mind, not desktops and gamers.
Hitachi DeskStar T7K500 320GB SATA2
http://ceemic.pri.ee/hitachi/hitachispeed.jpg
Just did another quick HDTune Bench (1st bench)
From all the bench results I've tested using HDTune, the results were consistent. Updated to Intel Matrix Storage driver 7.50.1017.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...WD5000AAKS.jpg
Here are my 2 x Raptors in RAID0 on Intel ICH9R
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9183/hdtuneyc0.jpg
Wow that awesome lasse.j5 but why 74GB Raptor of `danny run so low??
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/...dd81bd1d_o.jpg
2x250GB Seagate (one 7200.8, one 7200.10) in RAID0
Single vs Raid0.Quote:
Originally Posted by alb@nian
what the heck is going on here?
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4...3xr0yx8.th.jpg
http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/3...3xr0yq9.th.jpg
Your burstrate is high becouse i think you have write back data cache on, it caches some space in the memory before its placed on the harddisk.
My performance, didnt turn on write data back cache becouse you would get enormous burst amounts.
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/7513/hdtachfg7.png
allright, this is without write cache, looks so tiny :P
3x 500GB samsung SATA-II 100GB partition on ICH9R
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/469/ich9r0ey9.jpg
looks nice, especially the burst speed. I just run intel raid on ICH7R, dont know what the difference is tough.
This is mine with two Samsung HD501LJ in raid 0.The mobo is the Asus P5K Deluxe with a Celeron 440 at 3340Mhz.
just a lil info mak1skay, turn off write-back cache for this benchmark, the huge increase in bandwidth is because your ram is doing part of the work, just figured that out myself, not that its a bad thing, use it. It's gotta be good.
This is mine 320GB Barracuda.10
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8043/seagateil7.jpg
Not too bad...
http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/7084/hdtunebn2.jpg
Here's my scratch drive (i-ram) and data drive (4x320 Seagate Baracuda's set as raid 10.) Will repost when I test them on raid 0.