Test Setup And Results
As in our previous NAS tests, all measurements were taken with jumbo frames disabled in our Gigabit Ethernet LAN. Our NAS used firmware version DSM 2.1-0844 for all benchmarks.
| System Hardware | |
|---|---|
| Motherboard | Asus P5E3 Deluxe, Rev.1.03G Intel X38, BIOS: 0810 (02/11/2007) |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (65nm Conroe core) @ 2.26 GHz |
| RAM | 2 x 1024MB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600 |
| eSATA Controller | JMicron JMB363 |
| System Drive | Seagate Barracuda 7200.9, 160GB 7,200 RPM, SATA/300, 8MB Cache |
| NAS Drives | 4 x Samsung Spinpoint F2 HD103SI, 1,000GB 5,400 RPM, SATA/300, 32MB Cache 4 x Samsung Spinpoint HD321KJ, 320GB |
| Optical Drive | Samsung SH-D163A , SATA/150 |
| Graphics Card | Gigabyte Radeon HD 3850 GV-RX385512H GPU: 670 MHz Memory: 512 MB DDR3 (830 MHz, 256 Bit) |
| NIC | Marvell Yukon 88E8056 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller |
| Audio | On-Board |
| Power Supply | CoolerMaster RS-850-EMBA, ATX 12V V2.2, 850W |
| System Software and Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Enterprise SP1 |
| DirectX 10 | DirectX 10 (Vista default) |
| DirectX 9 | Version: April 2007 |
| Graphics Driver | ATI Radeon Version 7.12 |
| Networking Driver | 9.0.32.3 (Vista-Standard) |
| Intel Chipset Driver | Version 6.9.1.1001 (20/02/2008) |
| JMicron Chipset Driver | Version 1.17.15.0 (24/03/2007) |
You can find additional Benchmark graphs in our Image Gallery.
There is hardly a difference between the drive models where write speeds are concerned.
Aside from its lower power consumption and heat dissipation, Samsung’s newer drive, the Spinpoint F2 EcoGreen HD103SI, enjoys other benefits as well. For example, despite its lower spindle speed, it can read data faster than its older sibling, the Spinpoint T166 HD321KJ.
4
Comments
Read more
Sponsored
Latest Storage Solutions News
- 02/02 – Seagate Quietly Intros GoFlex Thunderbolt Adapter
- 02/02 – Seagate Believes HDD Supply Disruption to Continue in 2012
- 01/02 – Other World Computing (OWC) Reveals Two New SSDs
- 28/01 – Cleversafe Announces 10 Exabyte Storage System Configuration
- 26/01 – The 15 Winners of the "Explain a Samsung SSD" Contest
Latest Storage Solutions reviews
- 27/01 – What Does One Petabyte Of Storage (And $500K) Look Like?
- 20/10 – Does The USB 3.0 Controller On Your Motherboard Matter?
- 21/10 – Storage Specialist Starline Interviewed on Business HDDs
- 26/08 – Not All USB 3.0 Implementations Are Created Equal
- 23/04 – Memory Cards, Part 2: SDHC Cards From 8GB To 16GB
Although I agree with the conclusion of this article and believe that power efficient 5400RPM drives are a better choice for your NAS, I think that Tom's have done what they sometimes do in that they're not quite comparing apples to apples.
A better and fairer comparison would be - I think - to test the 5400RPM Samsung with it's 7200RPM equivalent in terms of capacity, platter-density and cache.
I believe the outcome would've been the same, but the comparison would've been more meaningful if the Samsung F3 1Tb 7200RPM drive had been used for testing rather than the older 320Gb model.
I think it would be more interesting to compare a PC-raidcard vs. NAS performace / price / power.
F.e. a [8 BAY NAS] vs [intel/AMD based PC with adaptec/LSI/promise 8-disk hardware controller].
A thecus N7700Pro vs. intel 7200 + adaptec 3805 f.e.
interesting, something to think about. I have to do more research on this
I think the review could have shown better 'real world' tests. sure, it shows the energy efficient drives are better than the old one, that's fair enough - but apart from testing 1Tb drive v a fast 1Tb drive, it might make more sense to show performance with lots of small reads, as you'd get in a departmental file server.
Given that, it might be informative to see 4Tb of ecogreen drives up against 4Tb of 15000 rpm scsi drives. It would show apples v oranges but it would show the results of real world decisions people make when choosing a new working NAS.