As you could see on previous page, we measured performance using three different programs, DiskSpeed 32, HD Tach and HD Tune. Let’s first analyze the results achieved with DiskSpeed32 (results are in KB/s).

The burst speed achieved by RocketRAID 2302 was 47.81% higher than the one achieved by a single disk. On SpeedDisk32, however, ICH9R achieved a higher burst speed, being 26.68% faster than the reviewed card. RocketRAID 2302, however, achieved a higher transfer speed: its average transfer speed was 63.69% higher than the average transfer speed of a single drive and 18.92% higher than the one achieved by the on-board RAID solution (Intel ICH9R).

Results with HD Tach were similar. ICH9R achieved a higher burst speed but RocketRAID 2302 achieved a higher average transfer rate. RocketRAID 2302 achieved a burst speed 41.03% higher than a single drive configuration, but ICH9R achieved a burst speed 18.55% higher. RocketRAID 2302 average transfer speed was 87.68% higher than a single drive configuration and 8.61% higher than ICH9R. The results on the chart above are in MB/s.

On HD Tune the burst speed achieved by RocketRAID 2032 was 7.42% higher than the one achieved by the on-board solution (ICH9R), however both achieved a burst speed lower than the one we achieved with just one hard disk drive (6.49% faster than RocketRAID 2032). RocketRAID 2032 average transfer rate was 87.65% higher than single drive configuration and 9.80% higher than our on-board RAID solution based on ICH9R. The results on the chart are in MB/s.

As a final note, pay attention on how hard disk drives can’t reach anywhere close to the theoretical maximum transfer rate of 300 MB/s set by the SATA-300 standard. This transfer rate is the maximum capacity of the interface; the actual transfer rate will depend on the drive.