By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
walsufnir on 12 April 2013
Edit Thread
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

So you doubt a test from tom's hardware and favor this from 2009? It's 2013 and again Ethomaz, it is not GB/s, we are not talking about ram here. But even if you take this, this is still way better than any bd-drive. 14.5 ms access time is what an optical can't even dream of. And transfer rates are still way better than 6xbd.

lol I mean MB/s... just write GB/s because the most use... you understand.

I meam the TOM's hardware test for the 2008 model is way better than what you have in the screen I posted.

My 7200rpm HDD:

/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads: 14252 MB in 2.00 seconds = 7130.55 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 338 MB in 3.01 seconds = 112.32 MB/sec

This is the average speed for the first seconds... 112.32MB/s for 338MB of sequential read... if the test continue the average speed drop to 70MB/s or less... that is my point.

My laptop is a Lenovo T430... 2012 HDD model.

I understand... You can have any opinion on my pic, doesn't make it false. It stays where it is: HDD much faster than BDD. No chance to spin this. And lol, ethomaz: hdparm is bad for benchmarking, at least do "hdparm -tT --direct /dev/sda". And you are using a 2,5"-drive ;) But they are also way faster than bdd.