Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte
Category : Storage
Published by Marc Büchel on 21.01.09
In this review we show you how Samsungs actual flagship of the Spinpoint F1 series performs in our detailed testing parcours. As usually we show you senquential and random read/write performance and you'll be able to see if the Spinpoint can cope with the other drives in our test or not. 
Specifications
| Model | Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ 1.0 TByte SATA |
| Capacity | 1.0 TByte, 32 MByte Cache |
| Accesstime (read) | 8.9 ms |
| Life expectance | 600'000 hours (MTBF) |
| Powerconsumption | Seek 13.4 Watt Access: 9.5 Watt Idle: 8.2 Watt |
| Acoustics | Seek: 29 dB Idle: 27 dB |
| Warranty | 3 years |
On the following pages we will show what Samsungs Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte is capable of.
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
Impressions
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
How do we test?
Testenvironment
We recommend that readers who aren't interested in test procedures jump over this and the following page and head directly to the test results.Test results
| Model | OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 Flash | 60 GByte |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte X38-DQ6 | |
| Chipset | Intel X38 | 1066 MHz |
| CPU | Intel Xeon 3060 | 2.4 GHz |
| Memory | Corsair Dominator 9136 DDR2 | 2 GByte |
| Graphics card | Gigabyte GeForce 7200 | |
| Storage (system) | Maxtor | 160 GByte |
| Operating systems | Ubuntu 8.04.1 Hardy | Kernel 2.6.24-19-server |
| Filesystem | XFS |
We think everybody reading this article can imagine the following scenario: You just bought a hard drive which according the specs sheet should transfer 120 MByte/s reading and writing. In the reviews you read about astonishing 110 MByte/s but after you put the drive into you system it feels much slower. The whole story gets even worse when you start a benchmark which does randomread/write of 4 KByte blocks. There you only get two to three MBytes/s.
Because of this we don't want to publish screenshots of standard programs like HD-Tach, HD-Tune, ... we want our tests to be
- reproducible,
- accurate
- meaningful and
- varied
We test with activated caches and NCQ (Native Command Queueing) because they're also activated under daily use. But the data size tested is always at least twice the amount of the memory.
We noticed that the measuring error is constantly within ±2%. Therefore we mention it only here.
Databases fundamentally depend on the storage system. If you choose your storage system correctly you can boost the performance of your database on a conventional hard drive significantly. Therefore we use PostgreSQL version 8.3.3 with the script pgbench.
Additionally we evaluate the S.M.A.R.T. data to assess if there are already errors.
The following table give you a brief overview to which points we turn our centre of attention.
| Test | Observations |
| Sequential Read/Write Tests |
|
| Random Read/Write Tests |
|
Linux, XFS, why?
There are different reasons why we take a operating system based on a Linux Kernel instead of a fresh Windows Vista/XP installation with all Service Packs.
- The filesystem XFS offers you a flexibility you can't get from NTFS.
- The testprogram iozone runs natively under linux.
- The test partly aims to server applications.
- Iozone gives you data on a statistical basis (error, deviation, etc.)
The filesystem is going to be built as follows:
mkfs.xfs -f /dev/sdbWe mounted with the following options:
mount -o rw,noatime,logbufs=8 /dev/sdb /mnt/ssd
Why do we test different block sizes?
It is important to reproduce scenarios of daily usage. Certain parameters need to be variable during the test to make a statement about the product. In our test the parameters are the different block sizes. It defines the size in KBytes which is written/read on the drive during a transaction.
With this method one can test the reading and writing of either small and big files. In a normal personal computer environment you usually don't find many files smaller than 16 KByte. The relative amount of small files is much bigger on a mail or database server. Therefore tests with small block sizes are of interest for database-based applications.
In bigger RAID arrays the hard disk cache is usually disabled and the RAID-Controller takes over the job of caching. Exactly in such setups hard drives need to be very fast when reading or writing small amounts of data. Sequential throughput isn't interesting in this case.
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
iozone sequential write/read KByte/s
iozone KByte/s, sequential write |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 109'332 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 100'027 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 88'861 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 86'454 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 75'471 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 74'730 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 47'840 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 44'720 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 33'350 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 94'762 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 94'410 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 93'856 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 92'142 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 87'147 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 76'178 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 50'381 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 45'463 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 44'491 |
| 32 KByte | |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 97'445 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 95'141 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 95'094 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 94'253 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 94'126 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 77'325 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 66'401 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 44'700 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 43'003 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 104'642 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 101'576 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 99'369 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 99'182 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 96'740 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 76'484 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 68'319 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 44'411 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 41'458 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 104'240 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 103'842 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 99'571 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 98'362 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 84'472 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 77'204 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 78'664 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 43'977 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 41'886 |
| 256 KByte | |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 106'809 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 103'543 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 103'175 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 98'939 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 89'999 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 87'703 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 77'257 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 49'007 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 48'008 |
Sequential writing performance seems to be a strength of the Spinpoint F1 and the disk copes pretty well with even the fastest drives from Seagate.
iozone KByte/s, sequential read |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 240'626 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 134'365 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 104'825 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 101'599 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 94'948 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 88'078 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 61'252 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 20'062 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 39'566 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 240'505 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 153'477 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 107'309 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 105'362 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 99'172 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 94'521 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 69'315 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 21'810 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 43'703 |
| 32 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 239'662 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 144'483 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 107'516 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 105'407 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 99'169 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 91'831 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 74'521 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 32'627 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 37'019 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 239'235 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 145'647 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 107'795 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 107'575 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 105'590 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 92'685 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 81'718 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 39'331 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 39'904 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 242'603 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 133'094 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 106'465 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 104'790 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 103'427 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 100'235 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 36'893 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 53'627 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 40'527 |
| 256 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 240'404 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 151'411 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 107'806 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 107'641 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 103'886 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 98'561 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 71'301 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 49'105 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 43'344 |
Sequential read doesn't seem to be what Samsungs Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte can do best. You'll find it constantly in the center span.
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
iozone random write/read KByte/s
iozone KByte/s, random write |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 48'194 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 4'521 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 3'005 |
| Samsung Spintpoint F1 1.0 TByte | 2'238 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 1'964 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 1'438 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 1'390 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'304 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 430 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 75'127 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 7'573 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 7'356 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 6'013 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 5'640 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 5'172 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 4'898 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 4'449 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'158 |
| 32 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 79'788 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 13'012 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 12'493 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 11'125 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 9'285 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 8'853 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 8'529 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 8'222 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'346 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 81'474 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 22'158 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 20'132 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 19'393 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 16'212 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 14'959 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 14'723 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 12'756 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'790 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 79'147 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 33'757 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 31'886 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 27'462 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 24'931 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 24'324 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 23'063 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 17'808 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 2'027 |
| 256 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 80'460 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte | 48'845 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 47'147 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte | 40'882 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte | 38'288 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 35'806 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 34'537 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 23'862 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 2'609 |
If the Samsung disk randomly writes 4 KByte blocks it is surprisingly fast. But when the blocksize is increased to 16 KByte you'll already find it bottom third.
iozone KByte/s, random read |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 30'287 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 20'397 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 2'617 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 1'203 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 763 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 629 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 541 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 520 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 362 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 95'552 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 51'921 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 4'504 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 4'331 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 2'785 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 2'211 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 2'207 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 2'034 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 1'451 |
| 32 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 149'029 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 88'662 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 7'291 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 7'057 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 5'533 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 4'912 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 4'036 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 3'465 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 3'094 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 197'591 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 129'360 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 12'840 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 11'432 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 10'717 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 9'036 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 8'719 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 7'749 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 5'775 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 267'814 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 148'442 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 24'534 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 19'979 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 15'911 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 15'834 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 15'712 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 14'976 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 10'169 |
| 256 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 205'981 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 152'684 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 28'621 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 26'387 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 26'039 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 24'404 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 22'928 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 18'218 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 12'364 |
Again reading and you can see, that also under the influence of the access time the Samsung Spinpoint isn't able to get a better place than bottom third on average.
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
iozone sequential write/read ops/s
iozone ops, sequential write |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 26'134 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 24'074 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 23'863 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 23'818 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 20'351 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 18'808 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 14'358 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 12'843 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 11'396 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 6'624 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 5'885 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 5'691 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 5'185 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 4'826 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 4'735 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 4'572 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 3'246 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 2'450 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'637 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'613 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 1'456 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 1'289 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 1'209 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 1'027 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 1'015 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 778 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 489 |
| 96 KByte | |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 1088 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'062 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 1'040 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 975 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 838 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 792 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 583 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 521 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 363 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 840 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 793 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 780 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 773 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 602 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 587 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 583 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 390 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 269 |
With small block sizes the Samsung disk copes very well in this test and is able to leap ahead.
iozone ops, sequential read |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 58'241 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 35'179 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 25'876 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 25'349 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 24'832 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 24'734 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 15'792 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 13'264 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 12'178 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 15'792 |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 14'778 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 8'808 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 6'724 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 6'612 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 6'376 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 4'197 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 4'622 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 2'898 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 3'663 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 2'237 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'669 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 1'644 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'567 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 1'019 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 1'006 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 969 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 754 |
| 96 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 2'428 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'507 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 1'122 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'117 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 1'078 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 1'054 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 764 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 677 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 522 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 1'844 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'140 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 834 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 829 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 806 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 739 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 578 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 483 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 381 |
In this test you can again see the Spinpoints little weakness in reading. But finally the center span can be reached.
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
iozone random write/read ops/s
iozone ops, random write |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 6'297 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 609 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 599 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 589 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 440 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 361 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 357 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 332 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 144 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 4'574 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 560 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 504 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 371 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 354 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 352 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 323 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 274 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 69 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 1'229 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 460 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 314 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 266 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 254 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 227 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 219 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 198 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 25 |
| 96 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 823 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 372 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 277 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 222 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 221 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 210 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 170 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 29 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 19 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 616 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 325 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 190 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 249 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 210 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 191 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 162 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 145 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 15 |
If the block size is increased in this case the performance of the Samsung disk decreases. At the beginning the disk is holding the thrid place and with 96 KByte blocks it performs really bad.
iozone ops, random read |
|
| 4 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 5'349 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 4'837 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 886 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 256 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 179 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 156 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 139 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 134 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 119 |
| 16 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 4'325 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 2'657 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 843 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 193 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 173 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 153 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 148 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 141 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 114 |
| 64 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 2'501 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'537 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 690 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 166 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 155 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 132 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 128 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 105 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 98 |
| 96 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 1'978 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'266 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 571 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 164 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 140 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 128 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 126 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 104 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 101 |
| 128 KByte | |
| Intel X25-M SSD SATA | 1'614 |
| OCZ Technology SSD Core V2 MLC 60 GByte | 1'018 |
| Seagate Cheetah 73.4 GB 15k rpm SAS | 534 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TByte SATA | 157 |
| 2 x WD Raptor 36 GByte 10k rpm SATA | 131 |
| Samsung Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte SATA | 121 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.0 TByte SATA | 119 |
| Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 640 GByte SATA | 118 |
| Maxtor DiamondMax 9 Plus 7.2k rpm SATA | 98 |
The Spinpoint has the biggest problems with the random read performance therefore you can find it under some conditions on the last place.
Discuss this article in the forum [pagebreak]
Conclusion
With the Spinpoint F1 1.0 TByte Sasmung has a hard diks in its portfolio with diverging performance figures. If we look at the sequential write performance in this particular test the Spinpoint F1 performs very well. If we also look at the random read and write tests we can see that the Samsung disk finds its place in the center space. This is a pity because until today we hadn't had a faster disk in our test lab regarding operations per second with 4 KByte small blocks. This show that there is potential in this product which eventually could be unleashead by a firmware upgrade.
As MTBF (Meantime Between Failure) Samsung declares 600'000 hours. It seems that because of this point Samsung is able to keep the price on a lower level than for example Seagate does with its Barracuda 7200.11 series which comes with an MTBF of 750'000 hours.
The noise level is confortable. When the disk is idle it is silent and you can barely hear it. If you access a lot of small files you can softly hear the head moving.
To a price of CHF 119.- you can buy this product at Digitec.ch.
Discuss this article in the forum
Author: m.buechel@ocaholic.ch