Reviews Leaderboard Database Reference Search StorageReview Discussion Reliability Survey Search About StorageReview.com Contents

Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV


StorageReview.com PayPal Donations



Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV ST318233LWV
  April 4, 2000 Author: Eugene Ra  

Legacy Tests

[an error occurred while processing the directive]
Compared to the Cheetah 36LP, the Cheetah 18LP AV does quite well in our old-testbed comparisons. The Business Disk WinMark 99 run in either Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0 reveals comparable performance between the two drives with the 18LP AV actually pulling ahead, albeit by a miniscule 1%. The High-End Disk WinMark 99, however, places the 36LP ahead with the 18LP AV falling behind by margins of 4%-9%.

 Testbed I  Ziff Davis WinBench 99 under Windows 95 OSR 2.1 using FAT 32  Testbed I 
Benchmark Seagate Cheetah 18LP (18.2 GB U2W-SCSI)Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI)
Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) 3813 4157
High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec) 13133 14767
AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec)8770 10500
FrontPage 98 (KB/sec)38967 39367
MicroStation SE (KB/sec)12533 14867
Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec)11300 11400
Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec)9890 11933
Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec)18033 20467
Visual C++ (KB/sec)14633 15200
Disk/Read Transfer RateStorageReview.com
Beginning (KB/sec)27800 27967
End (KB/sec)17367 17500
Disk Access Time (ms)9.31 9.3
Disk CPU Utilization (%)5.66 5.62

 Testbed I  Ziff Davis WinBench 99 under Windows NT 4.0 using NTFS  Testbed I 
Benchmark Seagate Cheetah 18LP (18.2 GB U2W-SCSI)Seagate Cheetah 18LP AV (18.2 GB Ultra160/m SCSI)
Business Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec)4343 4640
High-End Disk WinMark 99 (KB/sec)13767 14333
AVS/Express 3.4 (KB/sec)19167 19833
FrontPage 98 (KB/sec)35867 35867
MicroStation SE (KB/sec)19100 20367
Photoshop 4.0 (KB/sec)7717 7853
Premiere 4.2 (KB/sec)11233 11800
Sound Forge 4.0 (KB/sec)12033 13067
Visual C++ (KB/sec)13333 13933
Disk/Read Transfer RateStorageReview.com
Beginning (KB/sec)28100 28100
End (KB/sec)17500 17500
Disk Access Time (ms)9.15 9.1
Disk CPU Utilization (%)2.67 2.55

A more interesting comparison arises when contrasting the Cheetah 18LP AV with the original Cheetah 18LP. Regular SR readers may recall an article we published last year comparing a Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 5120 featuring a 512k buffer with the same drive featuring 1 meg of cache. The differences proved to be negligible.

Such is not the case, however, when it comes to the 18LP AV vs. the original 18LP (at least according to WinBench). Here we find that though both drives share identical low-level measurements, the 18LP AV displays substantial improvements when it comes to the higher-level WinMarks.

The Business Disk WinMark 99 run in either Windows 95 or NT 4.0 places the 18LP AV ahead of the 18LP by margins of 7%-9%. High-End Disk WinMark differences are also pronounced, the 18LP AV being just 4% faster in NT but a substantial 12% swifter in Win95.

The question is begged: What's different in this situation that creates these noticeable differences when no such distinction could be made with the DiamondMax Plus tests? Here's a list to chew on:

  • 2x difference between the DiamondMaxes; 4x difference between the Cheetahs
  • ATA DiamondMaxes; SCSI Cheetahs (we don't believe this would be a factor, however)
  • The DiamondMaxes had the same interfaces, both being ATA-33; the Cheetahs differ with the 18LP featuring an Ultra2 interface while the 18LP AV is an Ultra160/m drive
  • Firmware unchanged in the larger-buffer DiamondMax; Firmware specifically tweaked in the 18LP AV to take advantage of the larger buffer?

 Conclusion...


HOME | ARTICLES | LEADERBOARD | PERFORMANCE DATABASE | REFERENCE GUIDE
COMMUNITY | RELIABILITY SURVEY | SUPPORT SR! | ABOUT SR |

Copyright © 1998-2005 StorageReview.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Write: Webmaster