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

Seagate Cheetah X15


StorageReview.com PayPal Donations



Seagate Cheetah X15 ST318451LW
  June 1, 2000 Author: Eugene Ra  

WB99/Win2k WinMarks

[an error occurred while processing the directive]
Here are some results that'll undoubtedly surprise many SR readers: The Cheetah X15 does not dethrone the Atlas 10k II in the Business and High-End Disk WinMarks. The Quantum in the Business Disk WinMark edges out the Seagate by an insignificant 1%. In the High-End WinMark, however, we find the X15 lagging behind the Atlas by a more substantial 9%.

This may be further indication of something that we've alluded to before... that WB99's tests are becoming less and less reliable as drives advance and as the test itself ages. In particular, it seems that optimizing firmware for the benchmark (unfortunately without corresponding increases in the applications that the benchmark represents) can easily erase even huge access time advantages. Witness for example a comparison between the IBM Deskstar 75GXP and the X15 (not displayed here, but easily configured using the versatile StorageReview.com Database!).

The X15 nearly halves the 75GXP's access time yet edges the 75GXP out by only 6% in the Business Disk WinMark. Heck, even the 16% margin that the Cheetah enjoys in the High-End WinMark seems a bit suspect. At any rate, it's some food for thought for those who still swear by WB99. At one time, WB99 was among the best overall measures of HD performance. Unfortunately, it's aged ungracefully.

Let's examine the situation in the SR benchmark of choice, IOMeter!

 IOMeter Performance...


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