Did you know that your actual hard disk performance under Windows is determined not only by the speed of your harddrive (as measured by most disk benchmarks) but also by factors such as the mainboard chipset, UDMA/PIO mode, RAID configuration, CPU speed, RAM size and the quality of drivers? That’s true… It doesn’t mean that if you have a 7200RPM SATA hard drive, you will get the same hard disk performance as your friend who is also using a 7200RPM SATA hard drive but on a more powerful computer.
I knew about this logic all this while but never really put my desktop and laptop to the test. My desktop computer is quite a powerful one compared to my laptop but I was surprised to get better benchmark results for my laptop!
Before I show you the results of my hard disk drive benchmark and also the tools that I use, here is my desktop and laptop hardware configuration.
Laptop
- Intel Pentium M 1.73GHz (533MHz FSB, 2MB L2 cache)
- Intel 915PM Chipset
- 2GB DDR2-533MHz Memory (Dual Channel)
- 54000 RPM (IDE)
Desktop
- Intel Pentium D 2.8GHz (800MHz 1MB L2 cache)
- Intel 945P Chipset
- 1GB DDR2-667MHz Memory (Single Channel)
- 7200 RPM (SATA)
DiskTT simply tries to give you an indication of the amount of Megabytes per second read and write speed you get under your normal Windows 9x/ME/NT/2000/XP environment. DiskTT measures a disk’s throughput under 32-bit windows using Windows core read and write functions. DiskTT is small, free and portable. I’ve set the test file size as 1024MB.
Laptop hard drive performance with DiskTT.
Desktop hard drive performance with DiskTT.
As you can see, the 5400RPM hard drive on my laptop performs much better than my 7200RPM desktop hard drive. At first I didn’t believe because I always thought that my desktop is more powerful and faster than my laptop. So I copied an AVI movie file to both laptop and desktop. Then I manually copy the movie file to another location. My laptop was able to finish copying the file in half the time compared to my desktop. Is RAM really that important in hard disk performance? Please share with me your hard drive benchmark test results. Remember to set the size of test file to 1024MB.
[ Download Disk Throughput Tester ]
hmmm, I think this tool misreport MB(bytes) and it should be Mb(bits). I ran Iometer and it reports in MB and I got about 5MB which is 40Mb and this tool told me my drive was 40MB which must be Mb actually instead.
ie. you need to divide by 8 if you want Megabytes instead of it reporting in bits I beleive. This makes more sense and is in line with my other program I wrote then.
very odd, I ran the test and wrote a program that wrote out bytes as well. I only wrote a small file out and got a through put of
INFO: throughput=177053.82436260625 bytes/second
INFO: throughput=1416430.59490085 bits/second
177kB/sec or 1.4Mb/sec (bytes vs. bits as I am comparing to network speeds for an architecture I am working on right now)
This is much much slower than the results I am told by the other tool….very odd…any ideas why? (The program is in java so I wonder if it is because I am not using native buffers or something to optimize the speed).
results from tool
1863MB in 44.48s = 41.9MB/s
1863MB in 43.12s = 43.2MB/s
1863MB in 501.81s = 3.7MB/s
later,
Dean
This is an extreme situation, but I think it’s working. I think I have maxxed out the bandwidth of PCI-E x8:
Areca ARC-1231 PCI-E x8 card with 4 GB Buffer and 8x Intel 160 GB 34nm SSD drives in RAID 0 configuaration:
seq write: 1024MB in 1.09s = 936.8MB per second
seq read: 1024MB in 0.23s = 4371.8 MB per second
rdm read: 1024MB in 0.23s = 4371.8 MB per second
Don’t get too excited with the results yet.
The laptop 5,400 could be faster than the desktop 7,200 for the following reasons:
- Has larger cache built in
- 7,200 RPM drive is on last legs, or greatly reduced
- Windows set a lower DMA value in Device Manager
- 2 different windows versions used
- Need new controller driver for your Sata drive
- Malware/Spyware/Viruses/Fragmentation affect drive
- Laptop has fewer startup items (so loads faster)
- Drive is nearly full on desktop, causing disk thrashing
- Windows is optimized for speed on laptop
I am sure there are many other reasons to include on why this is interesting, but definitely NOT a final conclusion.
Raymond? Might I suggest?
Get an external drive, update your Sata controllers, & test both drives via high speed USB 3 to see what happens!
@ravi
there is something wrong with your drive (is an IDE or SATA drive?). If it is IDE check your DMA mode under windows.
or the Safeboot encryption slows your I/O down…
DiskTT FLUSHES the cache after write thus writing all the cached data to the disk. It does not CLEAR the cache after write. So some or maybe all data written to the disk will be in the cache when the read test start. This explains the extreme high read values.
BTW there is a new version 2 of DiskTT that doesn’t use the cache at all by default. It will still test the thruput of a disk system as experienced by a normal application.
Try it!
It locks up on me at 4% complete on the random access test. I gave it about 10 minutes at 4% and it never went anywhere after that. Had the (not responding) message and I had to close down.
Thanks for the tool..
Intel core2 t7200 @ 2.00ghz
999MHz, 2GB RAM
Harddisk: Western Digital scorpio 160gb,
Safeboot encrypted
windows file cache – disabled.
375MB in 75.16s = 5.0MB per second
375MB in 87.25s = 4.3MB per second
375MB in 142.88s = 2.6MB per second
Something seriously wrong with my hard disk..
Any ideas on how to isolate the problem?
In order to accurately measure speed. The file size has to be larger then the RAM you have.
Windows XP
AMD 4400 X2
2 Gig Dual Channel PC3200
write 82.6
read 77.4
random 35.3
Windows 7
AMD 3200
1 gig dual channel pc3200
write 112.5
read 104.6
random 55.7
Why is random access speed less than sequential access in some cases and greater in some?
Guys, you are mostly reading cache, not data from the HD – you can’t get speeds like this from a physical drive.
Vista Home Premium
Toshiba Satellite A200
Processor- Intel Core2 Duo T7250 2.0 GHz
Memory- 4GB upgraded from 2GB
Sequential write – 1936Mb in 106.39s = 18.2 MB Ps
Sequential read – 1936MB in 77.58s = 25.0MB Ps
Random access: – 1936MB in 44.99s = 43.0MB Ps
It seems to slow isn\’t it?? Raymond
Pleasea reply
As i am new to this website
I would like to take this oppurtunity to say, more power to you Raymond. your brilliant!!
Thanks
Renzy
500Mb in 23.94s = 20.9MB per second
500Mb in 1.81s = 275.8MB per second
500Mb in 11.58s = 43.2MB per second
500mb file 9999 chuncks
The disk throughput tester claims to clear the cache. It does not, I believe in all cases that show a very high increase in seq reads compared to writes. This can be checked by running HD tune pro in parallel. In my case there is NO DISK read actvity AT ALL, so all reads are from the XP memory cache.
If I increase the file to 9Gig, the test results in actually reading form the disk (HD tuen) and the numbers of read and writes are not differing to much. (40-60 Mb)
So the first posting shows only that the desktops cache is cleared and the laptop\’s is not. I also tested my laptop
Greetings,
Repaired motherboard utilizing Celeron at 1482 MHz Remember, *ALWAYS* a capital \”H\” in frequency reference to pay homage to Mr. Heinrich Hertz – look it up kids! Example, Hz, kHz, MHz, GHz etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
or, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency
Maxtor DiamondMax 320 GB Buffer size: 16MB Ultra ATA/100 (PATA) P/N: 9DZ0A6-591
Seq. write: 1024Mb in 33.98s = 30.1MB per second
Seq. Read: 1024Mb in 14.82s = 69.1MB per second
Ran. access: 1024Mb in 15.24s = 67.2MB per second
Flushing cache…
Sequential read of 1024 chunks of 1024.0kB
Random read of 8192 chunks of 128.0kB
Done!
Remember, the word is THROUGHPUT, or more specifically in this case, bandwidth.
Questo e’ il thread piu’ vicino al problema che sto cercando di risolvere e di cui ancora non si trova nulla;
in sostanza dopo una montagna di prove sembra che la maggior parte dei problemi sia da imputarsi a windows e da come gestisce le operazioni di multi i/o .
Vorrei che faceste questa prova, soprattutto per chi dispone di sistemi sia a 32bit che a 64bit installati, ovvero provate sullo stesso a:
avviare il defrag di windows (io uso jkdefrag.exe -a7 d: ma fa lo stesso), poi mentre il vostro defrag lavora copiate un file di grossa dimensione come una iso o dvdiso nella stessa partizione dove risiesiede il file o meglio su una partizione molto distante all’interno del disco, sono sicuro che ne vedrete di tutti i colori;
dopo molti tweaks, cambio di controller sata, driver diversi, ahci o non ahci ho visto che mentre con i sistemi a 32bit si riesce ad ottenere risultati decenti, ovvero copia di file durante defrag da 8 a 25mb/s con i sistemi a 64bit la velocita’ ottenuta va a seconda delle configurazioni da 2 a 10mb/s e i dischi sembra ricordano i trapani col percussore a indicare che le prestazioni sul multi i/o sono disastrose e sembrea appunto essere un problema di come windows gestisce il filesystem.
Vorrei sapere a vi cosa succede, i programmi comuni di test del disco infatti non sembrano comprendere una situazione di lavoro del genere e quindi non si riesco a fare dei rilievi validi.
Did some tweakin with Intel matrix storage caches as my write speed seemed way too slow. Now it\’s better but not as good I wished for maybe occing my RAM to 1066 will improve it.
OS: Vista 64
MBO P5Q-E, CPU E8500 @ 3.16Ghz, 8Gb OCZ DDR2@800Ghz, HDD 2 x WD6400AAKS on Intel P45 / ICH10R set as RAID0
Only volume write back cache in use
1024Mb in 214.88s = 4.8MB per second
1024Mb in 0.86s = 1193.5MB per second
1024Mb in 0.94s = 1094.0MB per second
Hard drive data caches enabled 2 x 16Mb and volume write-back chache
1024Mb in 23.21s = 44.1MB per second
1024Mb in 0.81s = 1262.6MB per second
1024Mb in 0.94s = 1094.0MB per second
Hard drive data caches enabled 2 x 16Mb and volume write-back cache disabled
1024Mb in 9.56s = 107.1MB per second
1024Mb in 0.83s = 1238.2MB per second
1024Mb in 0.95s = 1075.6MB per second
funny that volume write back chache slows down writes that much or DTT and vita 64-bit just dont mix well.
I am using a Windows XP VMware ESX guest running on a iSCSI disk. I got a pathetic 3.8 mb / sec
Intel Q9450
8GB DDR2 800
4 * WD 1600YS Raid Edition
3ware 9650SE 4 channel @ raid 0
No Paging File set
Seq Write: 1024Mb in 10.42s = 98.3MB per second
Seq Read: 1024Mb in 0.70s = 1458.7MB per second
Random: 1024Mb in 0.94s = 1094.0MB per second
I had a file downloading and was running WMP :\ :P
Surprised that two WD VelociRaptors beat 4 SATA II 7200 drives. They must be DA SHIZNIT
Dell Latitude D420 laptop:
Sequential write: 10.4MB per second
Sequential write: 16.1MB per second
Random access: 5.6MB per second
AMD ATHLON 5600+ X2
2*1GB Team Value
ABIT FATAL1TY AN9 32X
NFORCE 590 SLI
Nvidia 8800 GTS 320Mb
250GB HITACHI TRAVELSTAR HDT725025VLA SATA II
Sequential write: 1024Mb = 35.3MB per second
Sequential read: 1024Mb = 57.4MB per second
Random access: 1024Mb = 1170.3MB per second
P4 631 – 3 GHz
2*1GB Corsair @ 667
Nvidia 7300 GS
Sony 18X DVD-SATA
HD1: Seagate. 160 GB. SATA 300.
Sequential write: 128Mb = 3.2MB per second
Sequential read: 128Mb = 627per second
Random access: 128Mb = 820MB per second
HD2: Seagate. 400 GB. SATA 300.
Sequential write: 128Mb = 36MB per second
Sequential read: 128Mb = 630MB per second
Random access: 128Mb = 744MB per second
lovetocommunicate@gmail.com
Desktop:
Intel Q6600 @ 3.7GHz
Asus P5K Premium
Patriot Viper Fin 8GB
2 * 300 GB WD Velociraptor (WD3000GLFS) in Raid 0
Vista x64
Sequential Write: 1024Mb in 10.08s = 101.6MB per second
Sequential Read: 1024Mb in 0.56s = 1825.3MB per second
Random Access: 1024Mb in 0.89s = 1150.6MB per second
i have only 512MB of ram and my HDD is running terribly slow! about 2.2 MB/s
any suggestions?
Desktop:
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6GHz
Asus P5E
Kingston 4GB
1 * Seagate 500 GB (ST3500320AS)
2 * 500 GB WD (WD5000AAKS) in Raid 0
Vista x64
Sequential Write: 1024Mb in 21.86s = 46.9MB per second
Sequential Read: 1024Mb in 0.50s = 2048.0MB per second
Random Access: 1024Mb in 0.48s = 2115.7MB per second
Desktop:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Processor
Sapphire PURE PE-AM2RS485M Mainboard
Hynix 2 GB in dual channel mode
160 GB SATA2 Hitachi Deskstar – 2 yrs old
Sequential Write: 1024Mb in 33.84s = 30.3MB per second
Sequential Read: 1024Mb in 1.50s = 682.7MB per second
Random Access: 1024Mb in 1.91s = 537.0MB per second
pentium d 3.0 GHZ
1 gig ddr dual channel mode
80 gig HD few mths old
SEQ WRITE 1024Mb in 33.61s = 30.5MB per second
SEQ READ 1024Mb in 20.52s = 49.9MB per second
RANDOM ACC 1024Mb in 55.31s = 18.5MB per second
Seems like the more RAM you got, the faster the read and random access.
Desktop:
core 2 duo e6750 @ 2.66Ghz
4GB DDR2 1066Mhz
500GB WD5000AAKS
write: 1024Mb in 19.36s = 52.9MB per second
read: 1024Mb in 0.64s = 1600.0MB per second
random: 1024Mb in 0.72s = 1428.2MB per second
Thanks Ray!!!
Laptop
AMD Turion 64*2 Mobile technology
TL (1.6Ghz, 256kb + 256kb L2 cash, up to 1600MHz system bus)
Windows XP
1GB RAM
120GB (5400rmp) hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce Go 6150 graphics with up to 128MB shared video memory
Test results:
Write: 15.3 MB/s
Read: 32.2 Mb/s
Random access: 6.6 Mb/s
An update. I updated my desktop to 2GB (1GB + 1GB) dual channel.
1024Mb in 39.55s = 25.9MB per second
1024Mb in 1.58s = 648.9MB per second
1024Mb in 1.31s = 780.5MB per second
As you can see, the sequential read and random access had a huge improvement.
I tried with my Laptodp HD and with my USB HD.
I\’m really surpised to see that the external USB HD is a little better then the internal HD.
my laptop is:
DELL Latitude D820
Core Duo T5600 1,83GHz
2GB RAM
Internal HD:
120 GB
5400 RPM
write: 1024Mb in 51.84s = 19.8MB per second
read: 1024Mb in 2.58s = 397.2MB per second
random: 1024Mb in 3.00s = 341.3MB per second
extednal USB HD:
Fujitsu
250 MB
SATA
USB2.0
write: 1024Mb in 45.95s = 22.3MB per second
read: 1024Mb in 2.61s = 392.5MB per second
random: 1024Mb in 2.98s = 343.0MB per second
Hi guys, please do not overestimate this old proggie and it’s results, nowadays’ drives have extremely optimised caching strategies that “fool” this program’s measurements. It just writes a _file_ to your drive, then works with it the same way like any other program on your computer. Select 1GB size or more to get possibly more accurate results. :)
And yes, volume fragmentation matters pretty much, as is the positioning of test file on the drive . :)
Server IBM x354
Windows 2003SP2
Intel XEON 3GHz
2GB
2 * LACIE Biggest SATAII RAID 10 & Windows Software Raid 1 (RAID 110)
1129Mb in 24.41s = 46.3MB per second
1129Mb in 1.84s = 612.3MB per second
1129Mb in 1.53s = 737.4MB per second
Laptop
Windows XP Pro
SP 2
Intel pentium M 1.6 GHz
512 RAM
Test Results:
1024Mb in 157.27s = 6.5 MB per second
1024Mb in 121.82s = 8.4 MB per second
1024Mb in 293.93s = 2.5 MB per second
respected sir,
i am teaching some computer education related as windows xp,server, means i am persuing MCSE….
i need ur help about the how to hack the any other administrator password….. xp, server or any other…… so please… give some tricks and tips…..
hi Raymond,
My desktop info:
System:Microsoft windows xp Home edition
Version 2002
service pack 2
Computer: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor
3400+
1.80GHz, 512 MB of RAM
Physical Address Extension
These are my results for the test:
Sequential write:
I did it on my desktop and got this:
1204Mb in 38.03s = 31.7MB per second
1204Mb in 28.19s = 42.7MB per second
1204Mb in 139.84s = 8.6MB per second
Raymond, is my com slow? I find it is extremely laggy… need your help on this. Sorry for all the questions i ask… But thanks for the tips. They always work.
hacker
Hi Raymond,
Here are my results:
Intel c2d e6400 @ 2.57 Ghz
Asus P5W DH Deluxe
2 x 1 GB Ram 800 Mhz
Seagate 250 GB Sata II
1024Mb in 33.36s = 30.7MB per second
1024Mb in 1.80s = 570.2MB per second
1024Mb in 1.76s = 580.2MB per second
Are these results low as compared to my config ?
Windows vista Ultimate Sp1
Intel pentium dual E2140 @ 1.60GHZ running at 2.88Ghz
Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 (X38)
Dual samsung 750GB 32MB SATA II SPINPOINT F1 (raid 0)
sequential write 1024Mb in 17.38s = 58.9MB per second
Sequential read 1024Mb in 0.84s = 1213.3MB per second
Random access 1024Mb in 0.84s = 1213.3MB per second
ok this program seems a bit on the “Lite” side – ditch it, use hdtach ffs
i dont see how u choose which hard disk to test if u have more than one??!
suggest u use hdtach instead (freeware)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Tach
gives much more info
fyi my results on asus a8v deluxe, 4600 dual core amd cpu samsung 500gb sata on the via raid controller in ide mode gives:
sequential write 46.4mb sec
read 612.0mb
random 873.0 mb sec
looks like the read and random must be cached?
hdtach shows better info and u can choose drive:
sequential read gives peak of 80 at start, and tails down to 40mb sec end of drive
burst is 117mb
random access 21 ms
with all these apps u need to make sure u dont have any other windows apps running and use task manager to prune any TSRs
i have utorrent going and stuff so results could be better
enjoy, try hdtach seriously!
i tested about 4-5 times.. and my result still something like that.. why my write very slow?
Actually, There is one thing that even top physicists of todays modern science and which was eventally the dream of einstein is to understand and make out the UNIFIED FIELD THEORY, the same thing holds true in the case of IT, or computers, is to measure the performance of a system.
There are too many factors which affects the performance of a system. This factors includes, the OD, the HDD, the processor, RAM and stuffs like that. But this factors also include the user and the way the user is using the computer.
These factors interact with each other in an unique way.
So, it is really a very difficult task to make out, how these factors interact with each other, so as to bring out the overall performance of the system.
No matter how much tesing and benchmarking, we do, always a new result will be derived in a new day.
This is my thought, what you guys think of this issueee???
Raymond, You are comparing SATA to IDE hard disks. They will never perform equal. Furthermore HDD in your laptop spins slower than in desktop PC. RPM really have some effect on speed :)
Also I think that anti virus should be turned off while benchmarking (unless you are benchmarking the antivirus software speed).
It’s interesting to compare different machines though.
Hi Mark
I have moved this to the general forum
My HDD is a Seagate Momentus 5400.3 (120GB)
Intel Penitum 4 CPU 2.80 GHz
2.79 GHz, 1G Ram
Navida GeForce 7300 LE
Write 1024 – 42.92s=23.9mb
Read 1024 – 21.58s=47.5mb
random 1024-66.75=15.3 mb
Odie, it might be some running programs on your computer causing different results each time you run a test.
Odie: What kind of HD?
Laptop
C2D 1.66GHz
1.5GB RAM
Sequential write 1024Mb in 70.12s = 14.6MB per second
Sequential read 1024Mb in 41.75s = 24.5MB per second
Random access 1024Mb in 4.11s = 249.2MB per second
My Laptop (Acer 5315)
Intel Celeron 530
1.73 GHz, 533MHz FSB, 1MB L2 cache
1 GB DDR2
I have done 6 tests all with different results. The best was
Sequential write 22,2 MB/s
Sequential read 33,6 MB/s
Random access 9,7 MB/s
The worst was
Sequential write 13,1 MB/s
Sequential read 28,0 MB/s
Random access 10,0 MB/s
There obviously is something wrong on my machine but what?
Windows xp pro sp2
Pentium4 northwood 2.8ghz @ 3.4ghz
Intel i865p chipset
1.5gb DDR 200mhz
WD Caviar SE16 250Gb sata 16Mb Buffer 7200rpm
1024Mb in 29.58s = 34.6MB per second
1024Mb in 2.25s = 455.1MB per second
1024Mb in 2.05s = 500.2MB per second
Hi Raymond. Always fun to read your blog.
Here’s my results (dual boot desktop PC):
CPU: Intel Pentium Q6600 Core 2 Quad
2.4 Ghz (65nm – Kentsfield family)
M/B: Gigabyte x38-DQ6 | Intel X38 Chipset
RAM: 2 Gb DDR2 @ 800 Mhz
(2 DIMMS x 1 Mb PC6400 – Dual Channel)
HDD 1: Western Digital 320 Gb | SATA II
16MB buffer | 7200 rpm (model WD3200KS)
Running XP pro SP2 x86
Sequential write: 1024Mb in 30.42s = 33.7MB per second
Sequential read: 1024Mb in 1.69s = 607.0MB per second
Random access: 1024Mb in 1.80s = 569.8MB per second
HDD 2: Western Digital 500 Gb | SATA II
16MB buffer | 7200 rpm (model WD5000AAKS)
Running Vista Ultimate x64
Sequential write: 1024Mb in 24.29s = 42.2MB per second
Sequential read: 1024Mb in 1.64s = 623MB per second
Random access: 1024Mb in 0.80s = 1286.4MB per second
Yeah, it’s mainly b/c the memory is twice the size as the desktop (more data is copied to it first then written to your HD).
My desktop:
Intel C2D e6750 @ 2.66
Intel X38
Ram: 2Gb 1066 Dual Channel
HD 1 : WD Raptor 36Gb
1024Mb in 27.47s = 37.3MB per second
1024Mb in 0.50s = 2048.0MB per second
1024Mb in 0.64s = 1600.0MB per second
HD 2 : WD Caviar 160Gb
1024Mb in 25.38s = 40.4MB per second
1024Mb in 1.53s = 668.4MB per second
1024Mb in 1.69s = 606.6MB per second
why cant i post
Has anyone considered wether or not a fragmented disk would effect the results?
I would think so……
Rob./
exulter has crazy read and access, but writing is pretty slow.
exulter, looks like your hard disk performs really well with your configuration.
Anyone tested DiskTT on laptop?
Desktop:
Vista 32bit
C2D 4400@2,66
Intel P35 Chipset
2 GB DDR2-667@800
WD 360GB, 7200 RPM, 8 MB Buffer, SATA2:
1024Mb in 29.59s = 34.6MB per second
1024Mb in 15.65s = 65.4MB per second
1024Mb in 10.64s = 96.2MB per second
Drive is 1/2 year old.
Here is my desktop hardware configuration..
- Intel Pentium D (820) 2.8GHz – 800MHz, 1MB L2 cache
- Intel 945P Chipset
- Memory : 1GB DDR2-667MHz + 2x512MB DDR2-533MHz
Here is the result using 1024MB test file:
80GB HDD, 7200 RPM, 8MB Buffer, SATA:
- Sequential write : 1024Mb in 33.81s = 30.3MB per second
- Sequential read : 1024Mb in 1.59s = 642.8MB per second
- random access : 1024Mb in 1.31s = 780.5MB per second
250GB, 7200 RPM, 16MB Buffer, SATA2:
- Sequential write : 1024Mb in 30.77s = 33.3MB per second
- Sequential read : 1024Mb in 1.61s = 636.4MB per second
- random access : 1024Mb in 1.28s = 799.4MB per second
Hi,
will disk throughput tester work with Vista?
Huh ? really ? I always though that laptop cannot better than PC even the spec is higher. Today I learn some thing. So , not bad to buy a laptop ma.
Work pc:
AMD Sempron 3000+
Nvidia Nforce 3 Chipset
1GB DDR-333 Memory (Single Channel)
7200 RPM (SATA)
Write: 18.6MB per sec
Read: 13.3MB per sec
Random: 6.5MB per sec