What about 160 GB drives? Let's take a look.
| Sequential | |||
| Deskstar 160 GB single | Barracuda 160 GB single | Caviar 160 GB single | |
| ReadOps | 2390.79 | 2305.64 | 2438.04 |
| ReadMBs | 74.71 | 72.05 | 76.19 |
| Average Access Time | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.41 |
| Maximum Access Time | 11.53 | 7.69 | 9.98 |
| CPU Utilization | 2.87 | 2.83 | 2.77 |
| WriteOps | 2380.76 | 2305.48 | 2433.4 |
| WriteMBs | 74.4 | 72.05 | 76.04 |
| Average Access Time | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.41 |
| Maximum Access Time | 18.43 | 9.44 | 14.01 |
| CPU Utilization | 3.31 | 2.93 | 2.81 |
| Deskstar 160 GB array | Barracuda 160 GB array | Caviar 160 GB array | |
| ReadOps | 2989.39 | 2845.8 | 3351.38 |
| ReadMBs | 93.42 | 88.93 | 104.73 |
| Average Access Time | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.3 |
| Maximum Access Time | 16.05 | 12.9 | 10.45 |
| CPU Utilization | 6.96 | 6 | 6.22 |
| WriteOps | 2698.06 | 2444.57 | 2698.24 |
| WriteMBs | 84.32 | 76.39 | 84.32 |
| Average Access Time | 0.37 | 0.41 | 0.37 |
| Maximum Access Time | 1.7 | 7.62 | 16.24 |
| CPU Utilization | 4.24 | 3.76 | 4.31 |
HD Tach results showed us that the 160 GB Deskstar is on a par with the 160 GB Caviar. According to IOMeter, the Deskstar puts up performance close to the Caviar but nowhere near of passing it. Well, except for one test - sequential write with RAID 0 - the two drives are practically offer identical.level of performance. However, look at read performance with RAID 0 - the Caviars are definitely have the lead here. As expected, the Barracuda brings up the rear, though in all honesty it isn't that far behind the Deskstar. We still do not see the write performance advantage HD Tach showed with RAID 0.
| Random | |||
| Deskstar 160 GB single | Barracuda 160 GB single | Caviar 160 GB single | |
| ReadOps | 71.61 | 56.16 | 71.82 |
| ReadMBs | 2.24 | 1.76 | 2.24 |
| Average Access Time | 13.96 | 17.8 | 13.92 |
| Maximum Access Time | 26.55 | 36.54 | 27.34 |
| CPU Utilization | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.1 |
| WriteOps | 103.57 | 87.82 | 120.04 |
| WriteMBs | 3.24 | 2.75 | 3.75 |
| Average Access Time | 9.63 | 11.39 | 8.33 |
| Maximum Access Time | 615.79 | 30.31 | 32.45 |
| CPU Utilization | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.16 |
| Deskstar 160 GB array | Barracuda 160 GB array | Caviar 160 GB array | |
| ReadOps | 69.44 | 54.92 | 69.81 |
| ReadMBs | 2.17 | 1.72 | 2.18 |
| Average Access Time | 14.4 | 18.21 | 14.32 |
| Maximum Access Time | 29.67 | 40.61 | 26.51 |
| CPU Utilization | 3.72 | 3.67 | 3.96 |
| WriteOps | 115.91 | 133.3 | 183.17 |
| WriteMBs | 3.62 | 4.17 | 5.72 |
| Average Access Time | 8.57 | 7.5 | 5.46 |
| Maximum Access Time | 862.22 | 50.66 | 32.33 |
| CPU Utilization | 14.07 | 11.71 | 16.08 |
Finally, the random test results. Looks like we found a chink in Deskstar's armor. Though the Deskstar's random read performance, be it as a single drive and in RAID 0 stripe is on the same level as the Caviar's, it's not as strong when doing random writes. In RAID 0, the number of Write Operations per seconds is actually lower than Barracuda's - a sign that perhaps HD Tach's sequential results is not really that sequential at all? The difference is significant enough for us to say that from these results, the 160 GB Caviar is the better choice.
[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]