Tech-Hounds.com

Because gamers play games, not benchmarks






Quake4 - Opening Cinematic, First Run Load
Deskstar 160 GB single
Barracuda 160 GB single
Caviar 160 GB single
Deskstar 160 GB stripe
Barracuda 160 GB stripe
Caviar 160 GB stripe
34502
35316
35860
35226 (Average)
.
40808
42224
42502
41844 (Average)
.
35879
36975
36641
36498 (Average)
.
35525
35460
35235
35406 (Average)
.
41831
41476
41530
41612 (Average)
.
36889
37207
37766
37280 (Average)
Quake4 - Opening Cinematic, Consecutive Load
Deskstar 160 GB single
Barracuda 160 GB single
Caviar 160 GB single
Deskstar 160 GB stripe
Barracuda 160GB stripe
Caviar 160 GB stripe
15815
15892
15627
15778 (Average)
.
15706
15522
15791
15673 (Average)
.
15823
15503
15591
15639 (Average)
.
16168
16851
15706
16241 (Average)
.
16056
15716
15714
15828 (Average)
.
15880
15531
15520
15643 (Average)

Like F.E.A.R, we're seeing basically the same graph. The Deskstar is marginally faster in both single and RAID 0 configuration than the Caviar. About 1.2 to 1.8 seconds on first run loads. The Barracuda 7200.9 is still, well, the Barracuda 7200.9. We basically run out of words to say. Looks like in real life situations where read and CPU load is the emphasis, the Deskstar 160 GB has a slight upper hand above the 160 GB Caviar SE.

SeriousSam II - Mental Institution, Level Load
Deskstar 160 GB single
Barracuda 160 GB single
Caviar 160 GB single
Deskstar 160 GB stripe
Barracuda 160 GB stripe
Caviar 160 GB stripe
7351
7507
7132
7330 (Average)
.
7806
8233
8250
8096 (Average)
.
7440
7335
7617
7464 (Average)
.
7403
7189
7340
7310 (Average)
.
7256
9061
8358
8225 (Average)
.
7032
6733
7153
6972 (Average)

Hmm, redemption for the 160 GB Caviar SE? On single drive configurations, the Deskstar still leads over the Caviar but use them in RAID 0 and the Caviar pulls slightly ahead. Too bad the load times are much too short to really make a difference.

[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]
Disclaimer and Privacy policy.