Shopping cart    |      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Disk scores in Performance Test 7

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default Disk scores in Performance Test 7

    Hi everyone!

    Currently doing some benchmarking using PerformanceTest 7, but have one key wondering about the disk testing...

    Looking at the top ever result as an example (although there are others similar), the disk scores are INSANELY high, showing read/write speeds of a few thousand MB/s. Is this a glitch or can anyone tell me what kind of storage device can show scores like this? The disk shows as 'Removable'.

    Any input appreciated!

    James
    Last edited by jimbonbon; 09-30-2010 at 10:19 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Are you looking at the hard drive bench mark scores on line here or the overall disk score in Performance test 7 it self. Either way the scores are not in MB/s but relative performance. Only the disk sub scores are in MB/s. The fastest drives are "Solid State Drives" SSD's for short. SSD's are many times faster than magnetic drives and are a worth while upgrade to most any system. The only downside is cost per gig. SSD's are so much faster that an older PC with a SSD will feel faster than a brand new top of the line PC without one.
    Main Box*i7 930*GA X58A-UD3R R2*3x4 gig Patriot DDR3 1600EL*EVGA GTX 460 1 gig*Intel X25-M G2 80 gig*WD Green WD20EARS 2 TB*ASUS DRW-24B3LT*Samsung SH-S223L*Corsair AX750 PSU*Rosewill Challenger case*Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit SP1

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wonderwrench View Post
    Are you looking at the hard drive bench mark scores on line here or the overall disk score in Performance test 7 it self. Either way the scores are not in MB/s but relative performance. Only the disk sub scores are in MB/s. The fastest drives are "Solid State Drives" SSD's for short. SSD's are many times faster than magnetic drives and are a worth while upgrade to most any system. The only downside is cost per gig. SSD's are so much faster that an older PC with a SSD will feel faster than a brand new top of the line PC without one.
    Hi there. and thanks for the response...

    I currently run SSD's in my gaming machine, but am on laptop at the moment - below is a screenshot of what i mean. Obviously the overall disk score is a 'weighted' number based on the tests, but if you look at the read/write and cache scores these are listed as MB/s. For my laptop and a couple of the other reference computers I have randomly selected, the scores make sense and are the kind of speeds you would expect. But you can probably see the two I am referring to that seem odd




    J

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    4,178

    Default

    These number are too high for a SSD connected via SATA.

    They are what you would get from a pure RAM drive. If you look at the system information for these baseline files I would think that the drive doesn't have any model number and it fairly small. Maybe only 1 -4 GB in size.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    234

    Default

    I see, just for fun see what is reported in the system tab. Drive size model etc? I would guess people have figured out a way of creating a ram drive that can be tested as a physical hard drive. This has been done with optical drives for a long time. Another possibility is some type of very high speed external storage. I would guess these submissions are filtered out of the online results so no big deal really but it would be cool to know how it was done. Its to bad the baselines contain no info in their notes.

    Edit: you beat me to it!
    Main Box*i7 930*GA X58A-UD3R R2*3x4 gig Patriot DDR3 1600EL*EVGA GTX 460 1 gig*Intel X25-M G2 80 gig*WD Green WD20EARS 2 TB*ASUS DRW-24B3LT*Samsung SH-S223L*Corsair AX750 PSU*Rosewill Challenger case*Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit SP1

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by passmark View Post
    These number are too high for a SSD connected via SATA.

    They are what you would get from a pure RAM drive. If you look at the system information for these baseline files I would think that the drive doesn't have any model number and it fairly small. Maybe only 1 -4 GB in size.
    See thats what I thought - it smacks of either LOADS of SSD's (see this from last year http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/samsun...ews-30563.html) or potentially a RAM drive.

    Insane either way


    Quote Originally Posted by wonderwrench View Post
    I see, just for fun see what is reported in the system tab. Drive size model etc? I would guess people have figured out a way of creating a ram drive that can be tested as a physical hard drive. This has been done with optical drives for a long time. Another possibility is some type of very high speed external storage. I would guess these submissions are filtered out of the online results so no big deal really but it would be cool to know how it was done. Its to bad the baselines contain no info in their notes.
    My thoughts were the same - RAM drive was the only thing I could think of that could potentially get to figures like that, but never seen such stuff in reality. The lack of info left me wondering, and I was trying to come up with a rational explanation with no success.

    Will install on my desktop with SSD and run to show the vast difference, plus see what other information is there for that SR2 machine.


    J
    Last edited by jimbonbon; 09-30-2010 at 09:54 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default

    So... below is a screenshot showing a number of tests run with my Intel SSD (some with OC's to see how CPU/RAM dependant the tests are) versus the SR2 machine.

    EDIT. Changed to link as this forum doesn't seem to shrink the image preview:
    http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5422/whattheb.jpg

    The disk just shows as 'Removable' and is apparently about 60GB. There is interestingly a rogue RAM module in slot 10 though which makes no sense in memory configuration terms...


    J

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbonbon View Post
    So... below is a screenshot showing a number of tests run with my Intel SSD (some with OC's to see how CPU/RAM dependant the tests are) versus the SR2 machine.

    EDIT. Changed to link as this forum doesn't seem to shrink the image preview:
    http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5422/whattheb.jpg

    The disk just shows as 'Removable' and is apparently about 60GB. There is interestingly a rogue RAM module in slot 10 though which makes no sense in memory configuration terms...


    J
    I just noticed we have the same SSD's. Your HD scores seem way low. I would guess its a sector offset problem or your not running your SSD on the Intel SATA 2 controller. See this thread for more info. http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2748
    Start at post #4

    Main Box*i7 930*GA X58A-UD3R R2*3x4 gig Patriot DDR3 1600EL*EVGA GTX 460 1 gig*Intel X25-M G2 80 gig*WD Green WD20EARS 2 TB*ASUS DRW-24B3LT*Samsung SH-S223L*Corsair AX750 PSU*Rosewill Challenger case*Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit SP1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    4,178

    Default

    There is interestingly a rogue RAM module in slot 10
    At the moment we collect the RAM stick information from SMBIOS. But these values are often wrong or incomplete because the BIOS sets the values wrongly (and doesn't have much incentive to get it right).

    For the next major release we are going to do direct access on the SMBUS to get the SPD data from the sticks themselves. Which will be more accurate, but a bit more risky in terms of compatibility.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    4,178

    Default

    There are lots of RAM disks on the market. Try Googleing,
    Dataram RAMdisk
    Superspeed RamDisk
    QSoft RAMDisk
    Everstrike DiskBoost
    Microsoft KB Article 257405

    There are also some benchmarks here,
    http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/12/08/12-ram-disk-software-benchmarked-for-fastest-read-and-write-speed/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •