TSullivan

IcyDock Fastest and Slowest Hard Drive Competition

Recommended Posts

IcyDock has been kind enough to sponsor a competition on StorageReview where we look for members with the slowest and fastest hard drives. The first stage is a search for users with the slowest drives still functioning - producing a super slow hard drive benchmark result. These must be platter based drives (not flash media). The two members who are selected as having the slowest drives will win either the MB881U3-1SA SATA/IDE USB 3.0 Pro Adapter or the MB981U3-1SA 2.5"/3.5" USB 3.0 SATA Docking Station. By handling both SATA and IDE interfaces for both 2.5" and 3.5" drives, users will easily be able to transfer data from their older hard drives to newer, faster models. Both of these adapters also support USB 3.0 for fast data transfer speeds.

The second stage of this content is looking for users with the fastest hard drives, or hard drive arrays (yup, RAID included) to win the MB982SP-1S Full Metal 2.5" to 3.5" SATA HDD & SSD Converter or the MB882SP-1S-1B 2.5" to 3.5" SSD & SATA Hard Drive Converter. Considering users with very fast hard drives will most likely have or be transitioning to faster 2.5" SSDs, the adapters will be perfect for mounting new drives in a desktop setting. The same rules apply to this part of the contest, where you must post a benchmark screen shot to be judged.

The benchmark of choice for this contest will be CrystalDiskMark for its ease of use and simple installation. Perform the benchmark with a 1GB test size and 5 averaged values, and the two users with either the fastest or slowest results win. The admins on StorageReview will be the judges of this contest, although the results will speak for themselves in this case.

You may submit a result for either part of the contest. To qualify, you must list your system configuration, drive information, and benchmark result for each drive entered. The contest will begin today and extend to August 12th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The benchmark of choice for this contest will be CrystalDiskMark for its ease of use and simple installation. Perform the benchmark with a 1GB test size and 5 averaged values, and the two users with either the fastest or slowest results win. The admins on StorageReview will be the judges of this contest, although the results will speak for themselves in this case.

Will we standardize on Crystal Disk Mark 2.2.0p or 3.x (currently 3.0.1b) or will either be allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming Crystal Disk Mark 2.2 is OK I'll toss in a first submission for the slow side (even though it's my fastest hard drive)

ASUS M2A-VM

X3 720 BE (reverted to stock clocks for this bench but CPU usage was single digits so I guess that didn't matter)

2GB DDR2-800

AMD/ATI Radeon 5570 DDR5 512MB

Windows XP Pro 32 bit

let me know if any more config info is pertinent

WD2500KS 178GB used out of 232GB

post-41683-0-08617000-1310481333_thumb.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My laptop HD is so slow it can't run the benchmark. Do I win? :rolleyes:

Oh come on...it can't be *that* bad can it :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

benchmarks4.jpg

The slower benchmark (left) is a 27GB IBM drive (purchased back in the 1900s); the faster benchmark (right) is a 2TB WD Caviar Black (purchased 2010).

Compaq Presario SR1913WM, 3GB RAM, 2.4 GHz AMD Athlon 64 4800+ dual core, XP Pro sp3 32bit

IBM-DPTA-372730 (27 GB)

WD2001FASS

I got a faster read speed (135.1) out of a VelociRaptor WD6000HLHX, but it only scored 107.7 write, so it's combined speed was lower.

Edited by coyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benchmark of choice for this contest will be CrystalDiskMark for its ease of use and simple installation. Perform the benchmark with a 1GB test size and 5 averaged values, and the two users with either the fastest or slowest results win. The admins on StorageReview will be the judges of this contest, although the results will speak for themselves in this case.

Will you average Read and Write speed? Or just judge on Read speed, or on Write speed?

(Different of my drives do 'better', depending.)

Edited by coyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, everyone. I've been reading Storage Review for quite some time now (and really enjoy the no-nonsense style of reviewing). I registered because I was interested in this competition. There are a couple of things I was wondering though:

1. Is the competition open to non-US residents?

2. What protections will there be against 'false' results? Obviously there are a number of tricks people could use to cheat.

Looking forward to some answers and watching the competition. The slowest drive I have is a Maxtor 31024H1 which, despite being painfully slow, probably won't be anywhere near slow enough to get to the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my original drive for my first 486DX 33Mhz. This is the first and only drive that ever gotten a boot sector virus on, and ended up losing the data on it, or at least until I was able to recover the data using R-Studios. Even though I have successfully recovered the data I keep this drive around is for posterity as a reminder of days gone by. I even made a raw imaged of the drive to restore it back to its MBR virus infected state. :-P

The drive is so old that modern system will not even detect it correctly. I had to find an old Athlon XP system to find an BIOS old enough to see the drive correctly.

post-18511-0-29337200-1310524708_thumb.jpost-18511-0-69993000-1310524721_thumb.j

To improve the score to the maximum, I used a new (freshly installed) system, then blanked the Maxtor LXT-213A (213MB 3.5IN IDE) drive and reformatted it using NTFS.

I will let the numbers speak for themselves

post-18511-0-20168500-1310524695_thumb.ppost-18511-0-50418300-1310577774_thumb.p

I might lose based upon a technicality because, simply put, my drive is only 200MB so I cannot run the 1000MB test or even the 500MB test, and had to resort to the 100MB test.

post-18511-0-01869400-1310524680_thumb.ppost-18511-0-82921800-1310524665_thumb.p

I can run additional test or get any other information you may need for verification. Sorry guys I final gave away my 8088 Kaypro system about four years ago with my 20MB drive so I can't test that one. And yes it was still working when I gave it away :lol:

EDIT: Just for fun, I included an HDTune Benchmark and other system info i forgot.

Edited by Mkruer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IcyDock has been kind enough to sponsor a competition on StorageReview

The benchmark of choice for this contest will be CrystalDiskMark for its ease of use and simple installation.

Note to TSullivan & SR crew, IcyDock is marketed to Mac users too, CrystalDiskMark is *not*, when will the anti-Mac threads ever stop on SR??? Sheesh, even Brian is out on this one with his MBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my scores:

First is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 (ST31000528AS):

seagate1tb.jpg

Second is a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 (ST31500341AS):

seagate15tb.jpg

And finally min main drive - Intel 510 (running SATA-II):

intel510.jpg

And it's running on this homebuild:

MB - ASUS Sabertooth X58

CPU - Intel i7-970 (clocked to 3,6 GHz)

RAM - 12 GB DDR3-1600

Regards

Edited by VIKINGMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

say helo to my little friend! :)

my x drive. only 500mb in size.

post-73520-0-07043900-1310545312_thumb.p

my wd blue 500gb

post-73520-0-42378200-1310545812_thumb.p

i7 860, 8gb ram, win 7 pro x64 (dell precision t1500)

Edited by Cosmin.Net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TSullivan and Brian, Can you clarify the rules?

The first stage is a search for users with the slowest drives still functioning - producing a super slow hard drive benchmark result. These must be platter based drives (not flash media).

Then you say The second stage of this content is looking for users with the fastest hard drives, or hard drive arrays (yup, RAID included) to win the MB982SP-1S Full Metal 2.5" to 3.5" SATA HDD & SSD Converter or the MB882SP-1S-1B 2.5" to 3.5" SSD & SATA Hard Drive Converter. Considering users with very fast hard drives will most likely have or be transitioning to faster 2.5" SSDs, the adapters will be perfect for mounting new drives in a desktop setting. The same rules apply to this part of the contest, where you must post a benchmark screen shot to be judged.

Are you implying that the high end results needs to also be based upon platter based drives? We are seeing a lot people posting of SSD and RAM Drives.

Also in my case of the super slow. The drive I have physically can't support more then 200MB so I cant run the 1000MB test, but its still IDE and platter, and still fully functional.

Edited by Mkruer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TSullivan and Brian, Can you clarify the rules?

The first stage is a search for users with the slowest drives still functioning - producing a super slow hard drive benchmark result. These must be platter based drives (not flash media).

Then you say The second stage of this content is looking for users with the fastest hard drives, or hard drive arrays (yup, RAID included) to win the MB982SP-1S Full Metal 2.5" to 3.5" SATA HDD & SSD Converter or the MB882SP-1S-1B 2.5" to 3.5" SSD & SATA Hard Drive Converter. Considering users with very fast hard drives will most likely have or be transitioning to faster 2.5" SSDs, the adapters will be perfect for mounting new drives in a desktop setting. The same rules apply to this part of the contest, where you must post a benchmark screen shot to be judged.

Are you implying that the high end results needs to also be based upon platter based drives? We are seeing a lot people posting of SSD and RAM Drives.

Also in my case of the super slow. The drive I have physically can't support more then 200MB so I cant run the 1000MB test, but its still IDE and platter, and still fully functional.

Correct, and I suppose I should clarify the part on RAID arrays.

All fastest (and slowest) scores submitted must be from a platter based drive. If you are submitted a RAID benchmark, the test sample size must exceed the cache side of your RAID card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I scare everyone away with my super low score?

My girlfriend talked me into ditching my stack of old working drives months ago. I tested my 3 slowest remaining drives and nothing I kept is as slow as yours. I had to reboot to hook up the IBM deathstar but it's slowest stat was still double digits vs the single digit numbers you got.

In the old stack earlier this year were 6GB, 9GB, and such (all 3.5" IDE drives). Plenty of chances to find a slow drive if I hadn't tossed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn those girlfriends! Show her this thread and remind her you could have been a WINNER. Now, you're relegated to pretty bad, but not bad enough to win ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My girlfriend talked me into ditching my stack of old working drives months ago. I tested my 3 slowest remaining drives and nothing I kept is as slow as yours. I had to reboot to hook up the IBM deathstar but it's slowest stat was still double digits vs the single digit numbers you got.

In the old stack earlier this year were 6GB, 9GB, and such (all 3.5" IDE drives). Plenty of chances to find a slow drive if I hadn't tossed them.

You can still go for the runner up prize. :lol: But Yeah, I think I sort of blew the curve. like I was saying, the only reason I am keeping it around was because it was the first drive that I lost information on because of a virus, and at the time there was not any consumer tools to recover the information on it. IIRC when I asked how much it would cost do to it it was like $2000. So instead I ended up replacing that drive with a (I think is was this) Western Digital WDAC11200 - Caviar 1.2 GB but lost that one later at school when i was using it at a lab drive. and I have been sticking to WD even since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll await the rules being clarified before I start digging in my junk pile. :D

I don't think I have anything smaller than 9GB or so, so those of you with 200MB drives, if those are still legal, would definitely clobber me. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

continuum you can still win running up, or is that down? :lol: even if i don't win becuse of the 1000MB test, i hope to win a special prize for the most pathetic drive, i.e. get that man a SDD prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll await the rules being clarified before I start digging in my junk pile. :D

I don't think I have anything smaller than 9GB or so, so those of you with 200MB drives, if those are still legal, would definitely clobber me. :P

As long as the drive is platter based, the smaller CDM benchmarks are allowed if the drive capacity requires it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now