Performance in WinBench 99
We’ll use WinBench to record data-transfer graphs:
- Samsung 32GB SSD
- Samsung 64GB SSD
- Gigabyte i-RAM
- Fujitsu MBA3300RC
- Samsung SpinPoint F1, 1GB
- Hitachi 7K200, 200GB
The next diagram shows the data-transfer rate at the beginning and end of the partition:
There are a few interesting points here. First of all, the reduction of speed at the end of the 64GB SSD is merely an error of the test program: every cell has the same speed, of course. Second, you can see that the SSDs have a much higher read speed than in the IOMeter: Sequential Read test. You’ll see shortly how they perform under real-life conditions. And third, you can see where the SSDs and i-RAM differ from the HDDs clearly: they have the same speed through all of the drive’s capacity. As a result, the i-RAM will have a somewhat higher average speed than the Fujitsu MBA3300RC, and the SSDs will be no worse than the Hitachi 7K200.
[Pages]
Last Page [1]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives [2]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 2 [3]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 3 [4]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 4 [5]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 5 [6]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 6 [7]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 7 [8]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 8 [9]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 9 [10]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 10 [11]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 11 [12]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 12 [13]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 13 [14]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 14 [15]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 15 [16]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 16 [17]· SSD, i-RAM and Traditional Hard Disk Drives - 17 Next Page 
