Quantcast
BROWSE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
Seagate 160 GB SATA (ST3160023AS)
 
Author:
Editor:
Sponsor:
Published:
Brian Kristensen
Kurtis
Seagate
May. 15, 2004
HD Tach 2.7

HD Tach is a low level disk drive benchmark which bypasses Windows to get the closest possible physical performance of the drive. The most important thing to look at is the minimum read and write speeds.

HD Tach 2.7 Read Test
Maximum Read Access
Minimum Read Access
Average Read Access
57.7
62.0
66.4
57.4
32.8
28.2
30.4
32.8
46.8
45.7
46.8
46.8
0
(MB/s)
80
 
Seagate 160 GB SATA (Single)
Maxtor 200 GB PATA (Single)
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 0
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 1
 

HD Tach 2.7 Read Test
Seagate 160 GB SATA (Single)
Maxtor 200 GB PATA (Single)
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 0
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 1
0.1
0.6
2.3
1.7
0
(%) Lower Is Better
100
 
 

HD Tach 2.7 Read Test
Seagate 160 GB SATA (Single)
Maxtor 200 GB PATA (Single)
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 0
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 1
12.5
13.1
12.7
12.6
0
(ms) Lower Is Better
20
 
 

The Seagate 160 GB drive had a lower maximum read access time than the Maxtor 200 GB, while the Maxtor had a lower minimum read access time. The averages were about the same with the Maxtor lagging slightly behind. The most important part here is the minimum access time as that is the slowest the drive would perform. While the Seagate drives in RAID 0 do have a higher maximum, they still don't have much of an advantage in the bigger picture. The Seagate drive has the lowest CPU usage while the Maxtor drive has the highest random access time.

HD Tach 2.7 Write Test
Maximum Write Access
Minimum Write Access
Average Write Access
40.5
30.7
45.6
31.4
16.3
17.6
17.9
15.4
27.1
24.8
32.4
22.4
0
(MB/s)
50
 
Seagate 160 GB SATA (Single)
Maxtor 200 GB PATA (Single)
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 0
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 1
 

HD Tach 2.7 Write Test
CPU Utilization
Seagate 160 GB SATA (Single)
Maxtor 200 GB PATA (Single)
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 0
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0
(%) Lower Is Better
100
 
 

HD Tach 2.7 Write Test
Random Access Time
Seagate 160 GB SATA (Single)
Maxtor 200 GB PATA (Single)
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 0
2x Seagate SATA in RAID 1
12.5
13.1
12.7
12.5
0
(ms) Lower Is Better
20
 
 

Here you can see that the Seagate drives in RAID 1 have roughly the same maximum speeds as the single Maxtor drive. The Single Seagate drives outperform the Maxtor drive, and the Seagate drives in RAID 1 have the best maximum performance. Once again though, the minimum write speeds are very important, and this is where the Maxtor drive and the Seagate drives in RAID 0 shine. The Seagate drives in RAID 0 have the highest average write speeds. Just like during the read tests, the Seagate drive has the lowest CPU usage while the Maxtor drive has the highest random access time.

 
<< Previous
Page 4 of 7
Next >>
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: A Closer Look
Page 3: Test System / Benchmarks
Page 4: Benchmarks: HD Tach 2.7
Page 5: Benchmarks: Disk Bench 2.2
Page 6: Benchmarks: WinBench 99
Page 7: Conclusion
Subscribe to Internal Hard Drives [more info]

3 User Comments
1 - Posted by EmoMakesMeCry on May 16, 2004 - 12:44 pm

i have the seagate 120 gig version of that drive and absolutely love it. it doesnt perform any better than my 160 PATA master drive, but it is extremely quiet and doesn't emit enough heat to worry about. i really can't wait for the 2nd and 3rd generation drives to come out though.
*insert greedy laugh here*

2 - Posted by greymatter on July 19, 2004 - 9:50 am

I too own the 120GB Seagate drive and it's without a doubt the best drive I have ever owned. The performance jump, while small, has it where it counts. Moving multiple files and defragging is noticeably faster with this SATA over my other IDE still installed. I have previously run with quite a few IBM Deskstars which I also consider to be a rock solid drive and this Seagate has it beat. Great product.

I definitely second Emo though and can't wait for the next generation drives to start my HTPC project. :wink:

3 - Posted by Guest on July 12, 2005 - 11:25 am

Your board is limiting the performance. Why didn't you use the raid card that was sent?

Add Comment

To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields.

Username: *


Password: (optional)
(Remember my login information: )

Comment: *


What is 2+2?: *