As it appears through this confrontation, the Maxtor surely has a head start on the Hdtach and Hdtune benches, kicking off with the transfer rate tests. A few bad points already appear against the Maxtor: Even though the transfer rate starts at 65Mo/s, it drops to 33Mo/s at the end of the disk. As for the Compact Flash, the transfer rate stays put from start to end. Quite understandable, given the technology used!
Moreover, the Maxtor's access times are huge compared to the Compact Flash ones. Looking at the steady 0.4 ms, the hard drive, with its 14ms (30x slower) is way behind. We can also observe, on Hdtach and hdtune, a clearly lower CPU usage for the Compact Flash. The CPU remains therefore more available for the other applications.
Looking at the system benches, Pcmark let us see some interesting elements, as to say that despite a score half as good on disk tests, in global, the Compact Flash is only 10% inferior to its rival Maxtor.
Sisoft sandra reinforces what we learnt with Pcmark, with a supplementary indication on writing speeds. This places the Maxtor ahead for the writing tests, although on a par with with CF for reading tests. This allows us to confirm the compact Flash's weak point about writing.
Bootvis reveals the boot-up time of both systems to be astonishing: Despite the hard drive's fast writing speed, partly due to its cache memory, the Compact Flash comes out winner of this last fight, being 2 seconds faster which means 20% quicker at boot-up.
To conclude, we see that the hard disk beats the Compact Flash on global bench tests (Pcmark and Sisoft Sandra). The Compact Flash appears faster in access time and allows a Windows to boot-up faster. It must be noted, also, that using a system started-up on Compact Flash is much more pleasant and reactive than if installed on a hard drive.
)
)
)
)
Lire la suite et commenter cet article
Actualité précédente
