CrystalDiskMark HDD benchmark comparison: 750 GB WD RE2 GP Green, 5TB WD Elements, 8TB WD Elements

postcd

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
75
CrystalDiskMark benchmark comparison of the following HDDs:
ST500LT012-1DG142(500GBSeagate 2.5")
50EZRZ-00GZ5B1(5TB WD Elements)
WD80EMAZ-00WJTA0(8TB WD Elements)
WD7500AYPS-01ZKB0(750 GB WD RE2 GP Green)

237411_500GBSeagate_5TB_WD_Elements_WD80EMAZ-00WJTA08TB_WD_Elements_750_GB_WD_RE2_GP_Green.jpg


If i see correctly, the 8TB drive when comparing to 5TB one, allows more IOPs (can process more small operations per the time interval) but is slower for transfering large files, right?

--
Update: in regards to slow seq. speeds of the 8TB drive, i discovered that this particular USB 3.0 hub port has low speeds (30MB - speed of USB 2.0?) for all drives i have, so possibly faulty USB hub port in some way. The vendor advised returning the hub. Here is the 8TB drive test in good port:
2019-WD-Ellements-Desktop-8TB-WD80EMAZ-00WJTA0-CrystalDiskMark-benchmark-4K-seq.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

SolarBeam

n00b
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
36
Yes, you understand results correctly (the question is, if Crystal mark shows correct perfromance). 8TB drive shows extreme slow results with sequental operations.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,830
You seem to be getting USB2 perfomance on all but the 5TB which has USB3 performance so I don't think it is a fair test. Also there seems to be some cache effect on the 8TB that gives it an unrealistic (too high) 4K benchmark. You probably need to increase the size of the test to reduce the cache effect.
 
Last edited:

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,638
Also crystaldiskmark measures in empty space so when used on HDDs with data on them, the results aren't showing the drive's top potential. The software is better for SSDs or empty volumes.
 
Top