Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.! - Page 22 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #631 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 01:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post

Why the Seagate's over WD Reds?

Also,

Since I am using an Asrock Mobo I wanted to avoid this problem:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1454542/issue-with-wd-red-drives/0_100

Not common; But possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post

You got me there. wink.gif

I'd have no objection with using a RED drive @ $40 per TB btw...

I just don't like the current and typical $55 per TB they cost now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post


I've seen the Toshiba drives for less than the Seagate drives. Any thoughts on the quality of those?

I am not sure they have enough real world street testing yet to declare them an obvious winner but I generally view Toshiba HDD's favorably and they have some buzz going now.

I have not seen them for $40 per TB though.

3 TB Barracuda 7200.14 feature three 1TB platters instead of the five 600GB platters seen in many older 3TB designs (like WD's that are popular today).

It's a good reason 3TB Seagate 7200.14's are competitive on speed and energy profile at the same time. Much faster but not a total energy pig to do it. I think it's a good drive.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #632 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BllDo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Very good info. Thank you.

The cheapest I've seen the Toshibas is $46/TB. Think I'll pick up a couple of the Seagates while they are still on sale.

-




Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
BllDo is offline  
post #633 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 01:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bryansj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,270
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post

Very good info. Thank you.

The cheapest I've seen the Toshibas is $46/TB. Think I'll pick up a couple of the Seagates while they are still on sale.

They are $108.26 from Amazon Warehouse Deals ($36/TB). I bought three of the "Like New" drives from them last week and had no issues. Pretty much everything from Amazon Warehouse Deals that I've received has been in great condition. I assume most of these are returns from people not being able to get 3TB drives to work in their systems, i.e. user error.

bryansj is offline  
post #634 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 01:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by BllDo View Post

Very good info. Thank you.

The cheapest I've seen the Toshibas is $46/TB. Think I'll pick up a couple of the Seagates while they are still on sale.

Aside from the new platters, users are getting 7,200 RPM spindle speed, 64MB cache and several Seagate technologies like OptiCache, which makes the cache process more efficient, SmartAlign which helps legacy computers play nice with 4K sectors and DiscWizard which allows operating systems like Windows XP to take advantage of the full 3TB capacity.

To me- newer design + 1TB platters = better. It's able to deliver more robust performance than other 3TB drives using 800GB or 600GB platters, and it does not use any more energy.

I think it's mostly a myth today that GREEN drives use less energy, and 7200rpm drives must use much more. That's not really true. At least not when you compare a 2 year old design to a modern one.










It's how you win^


lol.









Quote:
Seagate Barracuda Specs 3TB
3TB - 64MB cache (ST3000DM001)
SATA 6Gb/s
Spindle Speed - 7,200 RPM
Average read - 156 MB/s
Max read - 210 MB/s
4096 bytes per sector
Six heads, three disks
Power - Operating 8.0W, Idle 5.4W, Standby .75W
OptiCache, AcuTrak and SmartAlign Technolgies




One of the more telling aspects of any newer hard drive is looking at its performance at the inner and outer edges of the platters. As drive density increases or rotational speeds get faster, users can generally expect data transfer speeds to increase as well. In the case of the new 3TB Barracuda , transfer speeds measuring just under 200MB/s compared to under 140MB/s of the previous generations and models. This has been an Achilles heal for GREEN and RED drives as they slow down significantly when they are full, and slow down depending on where the data is stored (inner vs outer edges of platters)

My 3TB and 2TB WD Green drives with 5400rpm spindle speed can read or write at 100MB/sec when new- but slow down to 60MB/sec when full in some situations. Seagates slow down too. But they slow down from about 200MB/sec to about 110MB/sec.. with an average somewhere in between those two for most real world scenarios.

I know I get beat up a lot by Assassin and some of the PRO GREEN advocates on these forums but to me it's a real benefit that should not be dismissed when you factor in the Seagates are cheaper, and they don't really use much more energy or make an excessive amount of heat or noise. Only in a very demanding or delicate situation (like a HTPC in a bedroom) would I think it would even be a factor at all.

For a server- With multiple drives. No way.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #635 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 01:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bryansj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,270
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 172
So do you like the 3TB Barracuda drives or not?

bryansj is offline  
post #636 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 02:27 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryansj View Post

So do you like the 3TB Barracuda drives or not?

No. I hate them. They are crap.

wink.gif




also,



It might be worth noting that 4TB Seagate uses 5 platters of 800GB to achieve the 4TB spec versus 3 platters of 1TB each for the 3TB Seagates.

This matters in energy profile and also performance.

Basically:

600GB<800GB<1000GB Platters.

So using three platters saves energy and increases performance at the same time. That is why the 1TB platter 3TB Seagates are good drives and have a noticable improvement over the 3TB Greens, and older 2TB drives from all MFG's

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #637 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I bought a WD Green drive recently and it was getting about 120MB/s read speed. WD has started implementing 1TB platters in their newest green drives.
amarshonarbangla is offline  
post #638 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 03:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

I bought a WD Green drive recently and it was getting about 120MB/s read speed. WD has started implementing 1TB platters in their newest green drives.

Yes. You need to pay attention. The newest versions of Green and also RED use 1TB platters. But often those cost more than a Seagate.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #639 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 03:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

I bought a WD Green drive recently and it was getting about 120MB/s read speed. WD has started implementing 1TB platters in their newest green drives.

Greens are only about 10% slower than some of the 7200 drives.
assassin is offline  
post #640 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 05:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

I bought a WD Green drive recently and it was getting about 120MB/s read speed. WD has started implementing 1TB platters in their newest green drives.

Greens are only about 10% slower than some of the 7200 drives.

My real world experience having owned more than 6 of each is that GREEN is quite a bit slower than just 10%. Granted I have Green drives from a year ago or more.. and none of the very newest.



5400 x 100 = 540,000 divided by 7200 = 75

So... 5400rpm is 75% as fast as 7200rpm so it makes sense it would be about 25% slower.

This is my real world experience anyways. Regardless if my math is correct or it sucks.

lol.

190MB/sec on the Seagate vs 120MB/sec on Green when empty.

145MB/sec on the Seagate vs 80MB/sec on the Green when full.


I am not going to bother to calculate the percentages but it's pretty obvious it is more than 10%.

The speeds I am using I believe to be reasonable and a good representation of real world based in my owning 20 of these HDD's and using them daily.

Note: There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a Green drive in terms of speed as it can easily handle streaming HD with aplomb; but clearly it's much slower than just 10% difference in speed. I am being kind to the Green drives with my speed declarations too.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #641 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 05:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

My real world experience having owned more than 6 of each is that GREEN is quite a bit slower than just 10%. Granted I have Green drives from a year ago or more.. and none of the very newest.



5400 x 100 = 540,000 divided by 7200 = 75

So... 5400rpm is 75% as fast as 7200rpm so it makes sense it would be about 25% slower.

This is my real world experience anyways. Regardless if my math is correct or it sucks.

lol.

190MB/sec on the Seagate vs 120MB/sec on Green when empty.

145MB/sec on the Seagate vs 80MB/sec on the Green when full.


I am not going to bother to calculate the percentages but it's pretty obvious it is more than 10%.

The speeds I am using I believe to be reasonable and a good representation of real world based in my owning 20 of these HDD's and using them daily.

Note: There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a Green drive in terms of speed as it can easily handle streaming HD with aplomb; but clearly it's much slower than just 10% difference in speed. I am being kind to the Green drives with my speed declarations too.

Rotational speed doesn't have much to do with the speed of a hard drive. And its certainly no where near the (incorrect) data that you are presenting in terms of speed.

Its 10% difference. Might even be less. (Edit: I just calculated it and it is a 2.3% difference than the Seagate)

The Greens are usually *faster* in data transfer than the Reds and not that different than the Seagates.





assassin is offline  
post #642 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:02 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
That is not a direct comparision. And it does not account for the massive slow down when full.

I just ran ATTO on my full 3TB Green.





70MB/sec is all she wrote.

Quote:
MASSIVE

That is word I use to describe the amount a green drive slows down when full.


The Seagate exhibits non of that nonsense.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #643 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776




There is the speed of a Seagate 3TB - 164MB/sec. What is the speed of a WD Green at the same bench ? about 110MB/sec. That's more than 10%

The *average* speed of a Seagate is more than 10% faster than the *maximum* speed of a WD GREEN.

Average speed of a Seagate with 1TB platters is north of 150MB/sec, it's operating in a territory the green drive can't go.





-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #644 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That is not a direct comparision. And it does not account for the massive slow down when full.

I just ran ATTO on my full 3TB Green.





70MB/sec is all she wrote.
That is word I use to describe the amount a green drive slows down when full.


The Seagate exhibits non of that nonsense.

Kindly post the screenshots from the same test on your Seagate.

That wasn't your argument btw.
assassin is offline  
post #645 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Kindly post the screenshots from the same test on your Seagate.

That wasn't your argument btw.

I have 5 brand new in the package. I'l be happy to slap one in the hot swap on my desktop. I will run both and leave the results up on one monitor, while the second monitor displays MY COMPUTER showing the drives and details.

I'll post a side by side screen shot with all the glory.

I'm lazy and they are in the basement. But rest assured I'll do it soon. It's movie time and wife is yelling at me biggrin.gif
Stay tuned, I should get to this tomorrow or Saturday. I think you'll be surprised.


Both empty or full a Seagate 1TB tri-platter 7200.14 will slay a Green drive in both read and write speeds. It's really no contest at all.

I will test 2 different GREEN drives. I'll even post the serial numbers and pictures.
I will test 2 different Seagates, I'll even post the serial number and pictures.

There's at least 40MB/sec + difference in speed on the green drives best day real world.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #646 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post



There is the speed of a Seagate 3TB - 164MB/sec. What is the speed of a WD Green at the same bench ? about 110MB/sec. That's more than 10%

The *average* speed of a Seagate is more than 10% faster than the *maximum* speed of a WD GREEN.

Average speed of a Seagate with 1TB platters is north of 150MB/sec, it's operating in a territory the green drive can't go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

The Seagate exhibits non of that nonsense.

But as usual you left out the most important part of that article (which I have read) showing that --- yes --- the Seagate also slows down when you reach the inner platters.

So --- yes --- the Seagate also exhibits that "nonsense".

assassin is offline  
post #647 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:26 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
I am going to post the benches of all my drives as a project this weekend, with screens shots and pictures of the drives, list of the models etc...

Stay tuned. I must go now.. lol.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #648 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Our argument is getting a bit silly. Both products have been reviewed and tested independently by multiple sites.
It's obvious the speed difference between the two is more than 10%. That's all I was saying. You said 10% and I believed that to be false and inaccurate.

I posted an unbiased review with actual data showing you the difference. Not sure what else you want. My experience is different than yours and I have used a ton of these drives. There is at least one impartial source (that I listed) that is directly comparing these drives with actual tests that are relevant to HTPC.

Again, not sure what else I can post other than data and fact from unbiased sources, tests and reviews.

You are correct --- the difference is not 10%. Its less than 5%, actually.
assassin is offline  
post #649 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


I posted an unbiased review with actual data showing you the difference. Not sure what else you want. My experience is different than yours and I have used a ton of these drives. There is at least one impartial source (that I listed) that is directly comparing these drives with actual tests that are relevant to HTPC.

Again, not sure what else I can post other than data and fact from unbiased sources, tests and reviews.

You are correct --- the difference is not 10%. Its less than 5%, actually.

I am not following you at all here. Sorry.

I've never had a Seagate drop below 100MB/sec. I have 10 of them.

I've never had a GREEN drive go over 100MB/sec when more than half full. I have 10 of those too.

Our argument is getting a bit silly. Both products have been reviewed and tested independently by multiple sites.
It's obvious the speed difference between the two is more than 10%. That's all I was saying. You said 10% and I believed that to be false and inaccurate.

90MB/sec vs 100MB/sec is 10% right ???? Well no way a full Green drive is doing 90MB/sec when the full Seagate is doing 100/MB sec. Not until hell freezes over, pigs fly, and the fat lady sings.

Every single one of my Seagates reads and writes consistently over 100MB/sec real world, even full. And I've never had a full green hit 90MB. They can do 120MB new easily, but they it's common to drop below 80MB/sec when full.
Two of my 2TB greens only do 60MB/sec.

Heck- I just tested and posted a quick ATTO on my full Green 3TB showing you 70MB/sec.
So if we use the review you posted at almost 100MB/sec as the "slowest" a Seagate gets that is 30% difference by my math ?? Yes ?
Or is my math wrong ?



?

70/MB/sec GREEN full
vs
100MB/sec Seagate full.

let us say this is the "slowest" these drives get. That is 30% difference in speed.

If you use the "fastest" the results are the same. 200MB/sec vs 140MB/sec is the same 30% difference in speed.

I'm not understand your 5% your claiming. It's not ever going to make sense to me because I know it's wrong.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #650 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I'm not understand your 5% your claiming. It's not ever going to make sense to me because I know it's wrong.

Look at the data. Read the data. Think about the data.

The best test in relation to HTPC and Server storage (we are in a HTPC forum and inside a Server thread) is the 98GB transfer test that I posted above. VERY relevant and applicable when you are transferring a few ripped movies over from point A to point B.

So let's look at the Seagate vs the Green drive in that test...

Seagate: 1360 seconds
Green: 1391 seconds

Very similar. When you do the math the Green is 97.8% as fast as the Seagate. So you are looking at a difference of 2.2%.

So 2.2% is less than 5%. Much less, actually.
assassin is offline  
post #651 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Our argument is getting a bit silly. Both products have been reviewed and tested independently by multiple sites.
It's obvious the speed difference between the two is more than 10%. That's all I was saying. You said 10% and I believed that to be false and inaccurate.

I posted an unbiased review with actual data showing you the difference. Not sure what else you want. My experience is different than yours and I have used a ton of these drives. There is at least one impartial source (that I listed) that is directly comparing these drives with actual tests that are relevant to HTPC.

Again, not sure what else I can post other than data and fact from unbiased sources, tests and reviews.

You are correct --- the difference is not 10%. Its less than 5%, actually.


You always speak like this. Use words like "actual data" "unbiased sources" "tests and reviews" thinking it makes you sound more correct. It doesn't work when the data is not in your favor.








http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-01-Read-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2901.html

Here is the link:




153.17 is how much percent faster than 94.39 or 93.35 ????

Oh.. right. It's only 10% rolleyes.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #652 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 06:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

You always speak like this. Use words like "actual data" "unbiased sources" "tests and reviews" thinking it makes you sound more correct. It doesn't work when the data is not in your favor.

Oh.. right. It's only 10% rolleyes.gif

How many times do we need to talk about benchmarks vs real world use?

I showed you the real world use. In a HTPC forum.

BTW here is a much more applicable comparison from that same link for HTPC use: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-14-PCMark-7-Windows-Media-Center-Performance,2912.html
assassin is offline  
post #653 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post


How many times do we need to talk about benchmarks vs real world use?

I showed you the real world use. In a HTPC forum.

BTW here is a much more applicable comparison from that same link for HTPC use: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-14-PCMark-7-Windows-Media-Center-Performance,2912.html

I am talking about real world. Notice how my original guestimates and speed declarations I made are holding up to be extremely accurate?? It's because I have 20 of these HDD's I used daily.

I'm not pulling this out my ass. It's clear to me your completely wrong about the 10% claim you made and you won't back down.

Let's look at your TomsHardware data:


We can look at maximum writes, minimum writes, or average writes too:


MAXIMUM:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-05-Write-Throughput-Maximum-h2benchw-3.16,2903.html






Minimum:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-06-Write-Throughput-Minimum-h2benchw-3.16,2905.html




OUCH! under 60MB/sec frown.gif

Average:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/hdd-charts-2012/-04-Write-Throughput-Average-h2benchw-3.16,2904.html





How can you claim it's only 10%?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #654 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

How can you claim it's only 10%?

Because those are benchmarks --- nothing more.

I showed you the real world data on the differences based on how these products are actually used. You can recognize it or not. The point is it is there and much more applicable, imo.
assassin is offline  
post #655 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

How can you claim it's only 10%?

Because those are benchmarks --- nothing more.

I showed you the real world data on the differences based on how these products are actually used. You can recognize it or not. The point is it is there and much more applicable, imo.

This is the biggest rubbish claim I've ever seen you make. It's almost shameful.

I posted your own Tomshardware links- that you used as indpendent and unbiased. I posted read and write. I even posted the MAX (probably higher than real world) The Minimum (probably lower than real world) and the average (probably closest to real world) ..... And you say this ???

really ?


I'm at a loss at this point. Really I am.

You said the difference was 10%. I called BS on that.

There is no way you can take that above data and claim anything near 10% in both read or write- real world. It's just not going to make any sense to anyone.

I already knew the results of all this because I live with these myself daily and I pay attention to this stuff because I care. Often I get critizized by you for caring; I am repeatedly told it does not matter. But it does matter to me, I like 60% faster and I can't help it.
I know my Seagate drives are real world faster than my WD green drives; And I know real world they are a lot more than "10%" faster.

If your not going to credit a benchmark as a good source to measure the difference in speed then there is really no more point in my continuing. I am not going to get a stop watch and time a movie transfer, but if I did I am certain it's still faster than 10% wink.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #656 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I am not going to get a stop watch and time a movie transfer, but if I did I am certain it's still faster than 10% wink.gif

Why not? That's what the reviewer did in the data I posted.

I don't know how much more "real world" you can get honestly --- especially since you are so concerned with the speed that you transfer these files to and from your server.

Seems like the most obvious test to me. And certainly much more relevant than using someone's synthetic benchmarks.
assassin is offline  
post #657 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I am not going to get a stop watch and time a movie transfer, but if I did I am certain it's still faster than 10% wink.gif

Why not? That's what the reviewer did in the data I posted.

I don't know how much more "real world" you can get honestly --- especially since you are so concerned with the speed that you transfer these files to and from your server.

Seems like the most obvious test to me. And certainly much more relevant than using someone's synthetic benchmarks.




I guess I could. I did not mean I was not willing. I was trying to express that to go to that length and effort to convince you, or prove my point your wrong when you say "only 10%" seemed silly.

Your right in that the results would be interesting. I did not mean to suggested otherwise. I meant to suggest your being stubborn and I should not have to do that. tongue.gif



Please don't hate me:




I could not help myself tongue.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #658 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,948
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I meant to suggest your being stubborn and I should not have to do that. tongue.gif

I see. I am the stubborn one.

Got it.
assassin is offline  
post #659 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,419
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 776
BTW you know that the benchmarks you posted above for the Seagate XT ST33000651AS is an older design that does not use 1TB platters right ? You know it's not at all what we are talking about when we talk about the 7200.14's that sell for $120 today with 1TB platters and newer and better modern design ???

Seagate 3TB Barracuda XT Review (ST33000651AS)
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_3tb_barracuda_xt_review_st33000651as

Quote:
five 600GB platter count


Not the same as

Seagate Barracuda 3TB Review (1TB Platters - ST3000DM001)
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_3tb_review_1tb_platters_st3000dm001
Quote:
1TB platters

Originally you posted this below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post









Not really fair--- Wouldn't you agree ???


I'm really not trying to be stubborn and much of this is fun and tongue in cheek if anything. Arguing hard drive speeds isn't life or death so I hope I don't come across too seriously tongue.gif

I'm just having a tough time letting go wink.gif But I can be stubborn too... tongue.gif

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #660 of 3805 Old 02-28-2013, 07:51 PM
Member
 
likelinus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Why do I get the overwhelming feeling this guy is the Alkemyst of this forum? It's rare you see someone with just a superiority complex and ego. Seriously, I read his replies and post and it's just sad.
likelinus is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

Tags
Flexraid , Intel Core I5 4670k 3 4ghz Lga 1150 Quad Core Desktop Processor , Intel Core I3 4130 3 4 3 Fclga 1150 Processor Bx80646i34130 , Asrock , Asrock Z87m Extreme4 Lga1150 Intel Z87 Chipset Ddr3 Quad Crossfirex Quad Sli Sata3 Usb3 0 Microatx M , Asus , Asus Us , Asus Computer , Asus Components , Norco , Asus Computer International Direct , Flexraid Raid F , Seagate , Seagate Hard Drives , Seagate Freeagent Theater 1080p Hd Media Player Stcea201 Rk , Hitachi , Dell , Windows 7 Vista Xp Media Center Mce Pc Remote Control And Infrared Receiver , Hp Oem Window Media Center Mce Pc Remote Control And Infrared Receiver For Windows7 Vista Xp Home Pr , Intel , Intel Core I5 3570 3 4 Ghz Processor , Intel Pentium G2020 2 9ghz Lga 1155 Dual Core Desktop Processor , Intel Pentium G3220 3 0ghz Lga 1150 Dual Core Desktop Processor , Amd , Amd A10 6700 Richland 4 2ghz Socket Fm2 65w Quad Core Desktop Processor Amd Radeon Hd Ad6700okhlbox , Amd A6 5400k 3 6ghz Socket Fm2 Dual Core Desktop Processor , Amd A8 5600k 3 6ghz Socket Fm2 Quad Core Desk
Gear in this thread - 1080p by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off