win7-64 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Hi, i would like to find out the real world performance of different harddrives in Windows 7 when transfering a large file from one part of the harddrive to an other. Please post your pics using a test file which must be atleast 2gb is size and wait until it transfers 3/4 of the file across and then use the snipping tool or similar to record the sustained transfer rate. Please remember to use atleast a 2gb file size and wait to 3/4 of the transfer before recording. Also could you post the make and size of drive you have. Thanks. My hardrive : 1x120g Vertex My Pic : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 ehm, posting screenshots of the copy in progress is a bit pointless, isn't it? Windows has never ever been able to accurately forecast 'time remaining' and probably never will. You need to record the time it took once the transfer has finished. Generally though, win 7 is faster than xp at transferring large files, but about the same as vista x64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted May 1, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted May 1, 2009 I have found it to be slow transferring data between partitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majortom1981 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I have found it to be slow transferring data between partitions. Thats wierd windows 7 rc1 is actually faster for me when transferring between two disks then windows 7 beta was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpotato Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 This test looks pretty pointess. How can you judge Windows 7's transfer performance by having a bunch of people copy a file on their harddrive? You have nothing to compare the results to unless you also make them transfer a file on another os. Even that would be very flawed because the speed of a hard drive on the inner tracks is different from the outer tracks so it would also depend from where on their hard drive they copy the file and where on their hard drive they copy it to. Also, everyone has different hard drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waruikoohii Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 It's pretty much the same as with Vista x64 SP2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win7-64 Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 ehm, posting screenshots of the copy in progress is a bit pointless, isn't it? Windows has never ever been able to accurately forecast 'time remaining' and probably never will.You need to record the time it took once the transfer has finished. Generally though, win 7 is faster than xp at transferring large files, but about the same as vista x64. Sorry maybe the title of the thread is a bit misleading but as i was saying in my post it was to find out the real world disk transfer speed of different hardrives in windows 7 and not windows 7 performance compared to xp etc. I'm not looking the exact time to transfer but the MB per sec as shown in the pic i posted. I know it will be pointless for some but hopefully some people might indulge my pointlessness and post their hardrive pics using the test conditions i used in my first post on this thread. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanMarston Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Is that 150dpi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Hi, i would like to find out the real world performance of different harddrives in Windows 7 when transfering a large file from one part of the harddrive to an other. Please post your pics using a test file which must be atleast 2gb is size and wait until it transfers 3/4 of the file across and then use the snipping tool or similar to record the sustained transfer rate. Please remember to use atleast a 2gb file size and wait to 3/4 of the transfer before recording. Also could you post the make and size of drive you have. Thanks. My hardrive : 1x120g Vertex My Pic : I used to have some screenshots of a large file transfer going 100 mb/s in vista (which supposedly has awful transfer speeds but I never experienced that problem) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win7-64 Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 370+ views and not one person has been kind enough to post a pic of their harddrive real world sustained disk transfer rate using this test. :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 370+ views and not one person has been kind enough to post a pic of their harddrive real world sustained disk transfer rate using this test. :no: Just because that would be pretty pointless, as the speed displayed in those dialogs is anything but accurate :pinch: If you want to know your actual HD speed, use HD Tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1232 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 LOL ahhh I love new os releases .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Use Atto Diskmark or whatever its called, HDTune or HDTach.. then post.. otherwise its meaningless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win7-64 Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 Just because that would be pretty pointless, as the speed displayed in those dialogs is anything but accurate :pinch:If you want to know your actual HD speed, use HD Tune. I was'nt looking to find my hardrive performance as i know what it can do, i was looking to see what other peoples harddrive performance was like in this test. Hdtune is a synetic benchmark which although it gives some nice numbers does not give real world performance. I have used plenty of synetic benchmarks but would like to see what other disks can do in real world performance while transferring a large file and which disk is better for this task. This test shows an approx real world sustained disk transfer rate, if someones hard disk is faster or slower in copying a large file from one part of the disk to another this test will show it. It does not have to be completely accurate but will give an approx transfer rate in MB per sec give or take a few MB. If one disk does approx 30MB/sec and another does 50MB then it's pretty much clear which one is faster at transferring large files even though it is only an approx figure. The reason i wanted it to be a file over 2gb and also recorded at 3/4 of the way through the transfer is that the disk transfer rate in MB per sec has averaged out by then so it will continue at that speed for even a larger file with only approx 2mb variance in speed which makes very little difference. A small file test would be inaccurate but this test using the conditions i posted gives a very good indication of harddrive performance in large file transfers in the real world. Anyway, if anyone needs my help if they are looking into buying a ssd and wants to see if theres any real world benefit please let me know on this thread and i will try to give you any real world or synetic test results that you ask. No disk benchmark/test will be considered pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win7-64 Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 Use Atto Diskmark or whatever its called, HDTune or HDTach.. then post..otherwise its meaningless Ok here are my atto marks but a synetic benchmark does not help me find out what different disks can do in real world large file transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furikuu Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Purely anecdotal, but file transfers in Win7 seem much more efficient than in XP or Vista. I used to rely on TeraCopy for moving large numbers or huge files. In both 7068 and 7100 builds of Win7, TeraCopy seems to do the job more slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 It creates a file and performs operations on it... Thus if there is a discrepency between XP/Vista/7 you can see it... and thus have your answer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Access Denied Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) EDIT: I notice I was supposed to copy on the same disk. brb with results, lol. OK, Same disk copy. (folder to folder): 2nd disk to OS drive copy.: Personally, on a Sata II Seagate, plugged into a brand new ASUS P5Q PRO. This is straight up asinine for my speed. Anyone? This is x64 of 7 obviously. The hard disk is not jumpered to 150 either. This is terrible. Edited May 2, 2009 by Access Denied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win7-64 Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 EDIT: I notice I was supposed to copy on the same disk. brb with results, lol.OK, Same disk copy. (folder to folder): 2nd disk to OS drive copy.: Personally, on a Sata II Seagate, plugged into a brand new ASUS P5Q PRO. This is straight up asinine for my speed. Anyone? This is x64 of 7 obviously. The hard disk is not jumpered to 150 either. This is terrible. Thanks. Those speeds are pretty good as here are my Samsung hd501LJ 500gb results connected by esata on a Gigabyte p35 DQ6 motherboard. Second pic is copying from one drive to another which always produces a higher result than disk to disk. Could you tell me the exact model number and size of the seagate? It would be good if someone would post using a velociraptor or a intel ssd using this test to see what their results would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevember Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 ATTO on SSD Yes its very quick, even in real world. Copying file clearing system each time. Copying to self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
win7-64 Posted May 2, 2009 Author Share Posted May 2, 2009 ATTO on SSDYes its very quick, even in real world. Copying file clearing system each time. Copying to self. Yes they are. :) I was wondering whether to get another vertex and raid the two but 1 is fast enough as it is for me for the time being. Those are good atto results, is that 2x60gb vertex raided? It looks like the raided vertex produces near twice the performance as one in this file transfer test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheerpipe Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 (4 Seagate 500GB 32MBcache in RAID0) Making a copy of a iso file in the same folder. I cant wait until windows calcule time remaining because the overall copy take about 3 to 5 seconds. Tis is fasteeeeeeeeeer than Vista, in Vista i cant go over 170MB/S. My lite notebook with small 160GB 5400RPM also go faster than Vista, much faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 This is a very stupid test. Why are you comparing copying a file to the same hard drive, and then doing the same test to another drive and saying that copying to the other drive was faster? Of course it's going to be faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevember Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Yes they are. :) I was wondering whether to get another vertex and raid the two but 1 is fast enough as it is for me for the time being. Those are good atto results, is that 2x60gb vertex raided?It looks like the raided vertex produces near twice the performance as one in this file transfer test. Yes pretty well doubles. It's 2x30g as 60g plenty for my OS and progames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fix-this! Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 my transfer rate in 7 is much faster than that in vista. overall everything loads faster with 7 so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts