As you could see on previous page, we measured performance using three different programs, DiskSpeed32, HD Tach and HD Tune.  On this page we will analyze the results provided by DiskSpeed32, while on the next pages we will discuss the results brought by the other two programs.

First, let’s take a look on the burst transfer rate results.

Here Seagate Barracuda ES.2, Seagate SV35.3, Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 and Samsung HD502IJ achieved the highest performance level. These drives were, on average, 3% faster than Hitachi Deskstar P7K500, 8% faster than Western Digital RE3, 17% faster than Western Digital Caviar GP, 27% faster than Western Digital Caviar SE16, 30% faster than Western Digital Caviar SE and 35% faster than  Western Digital RE2.

If you pay attention on the above chart you will see how interesting that we had all Seagate drives on the top – because all them have 32 MB buffer instead of 16 MB or 8 MB like other models –, all Western Digital drives on the bottom and Samsung and Hitachi models in between.

But the most import result is the average transfer rate. Here Western Digital RE3 made all other models to eat dust: it was 14% faster than Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 and Seagate SV35.3, 20% faster than Seagate Barracuda ES.2, 30% faster than Samsung HD502IJ and 41% faster than Western Digital Caviar SE16. This model, however, is targeted to the enterprise market and thus more expensive.

On the mainstream arena, the best drive on this test was Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, which was 14% faster than Samsung HD502IJ, 24% faster than Western Digital Caviar SE16, 31% faster than Western Digital Caviar GP and 37% faster than Wester Digital Caviar SE. The reviewed model from Samsung was 4% faster than Western Digital SE16, 15% faster than Western Digital Caviar GP and 21% faster than Caviar SE. Western Digital Caviar SE16 was 6% faster than Caviar GP and 11% faster than Caviar SE.

The maximum transfer rate is achieved when the disk is reading data stored on its outer most tracks. Here the hard drive from Hitachi achieved the highest transfer rate but this wasn’t enough to make this drive the fastest on average transfer rate (this is exactly the same thing that happened with Hitachi models with lower capacities that we have already reviewed).

Western Digital RE3 and Samsung HD502IJ achieved a similar maximum transfer rate (let’s call them “group 1”), while Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, Seagate SV35.3 and Seagate Barracuda ES.2 achieved a similar maximum transfer rate among themselves (let’s call them “group 2”). Then we have a third group of disks that achieved similar results among themselves: Western Digital RE2, Western Digital Caviar SE16 and Western Digital Caviar GP. The worst disk on this test was Western Digital SE, probably due to its lower buffer (8 MB).

Disks from the first group were, on average, 15% faster than the disks from the second group and 39% faster than disks from the third group. Disks from the second group were, on average, 20% faster than disks from the third group.

The minimum transfer rate is achieved when the disk is reading data stored on its inner most tracks. As you can see, the difference between the maximum and the minimum transfer rate is huge, and that explains why is so important to defragment your hard disk drive from time to time, to ensure that data is mostly stored on the disk’s outer tracks, which provide a higher transfer rate.

Here once again Western Digital RE3 was the fastest hard disk drive included in our round-up. Other drives from Western Digital also achieved a good minimum transfer rate, and unfortunately Samsung HD502IJ achieved the lowest one and that is probably what pushed down its average transfer rate.

Just to give you some numbers, the minimum transfer rate achieved by Western Digital Caviar SE16 was 17% higher than the one achieved by Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 and 107% higher than the one achieved by Samsung HD502IJ.