Difference between benchmark and windows copying in external HDD speed
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I just got a new external USB 3.0 HDD (Seagate Expansion 6TB), formatted as NTFS. When writing large files to that HDD via the Windows 7 Professional explorer, I see very slow writing speeds according to the Windows copy "speed-o-meter" (around 32MB/s). Reading speeds (also using MS explorer) are much faster at around 97MB/s (so we can rule out that the drive is just running on USB 2).
Still there seems to be something wrong, and I wanted to compare benchmark speed numbers from the web (which say that an HDD should reach between 100 and 200MB/s) with mine. I used CrystalDiskMark 6.0 to get benchmark speed numbers. And here, in the "sequential" task I get speeds of 162MB/s read and 145MB/s write with my new HDD.
I can also rule out that the internal disk I am copying from is the bottleneck. According to the benchmark it can read at least 120MB/s.
So where does this large difference come from? Why can I not write in everyday normal file copying with similar speeds as in the benchmark?
Is it just that the Windows explorer is terrible at writing files at reasonable speeds? Or is it because the benchmark files are somehow simpler than the files in everyday use, so one typically does not reach benchmark speeds? In any case: How can I get closer to benchmark speeds when copying my files?
Thanks!
windows-7 hard-drive performance external-hard-drive speed
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I just got a new external USB 3.0 HDD (Seagate Expansion 6TB), formatted as NTFS. When writing large files to that HDD via the Windows 7 Professional explorer, I see very slow writing speeds according to the Windows copy "speed-o-meter" (around 32MB/s). Reading speeds (also using MS explorer) are much faster at around 97MB/s (so we can rule out that the drive is just running on USB 2).
Still there seems to be something wrong, and I wanted to compare benchmark speed numbers from the web (which say that an HDD should reach between 100 and 200MB/s) with mine. I used CrystalDiskMark 6.0 to get benchmark speed numbers. And here, in the "sequential" task I get speeds of 162MB/s read and 145MB/s write with my new HDD.
I can also rule out that the internal disk I am copying from is the bottleneck. According to the benchmark it can read at least 120MB/s.
So where does this large difference come from? Why can I not write in everyday normal file copying with similar speeds as in the benchmark?
Is it just that the Windows explorer is terrible at writing files at reasonable speeds? Or is it because the benchmark files are somehow simpler than the files in everyday use, so one typically does not reach benchmark speeds? In any case: How can I get closer to benchmark speeds when copying my files?
Thanks!
windows-7 hard-drive performance external-hard-drive speed
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
What is the format of the external disk - ExFAT or NTFS?
– Eugen Rieck
Dec 2 at 11:48
It's formatted as NTFS.
– Nameless
Dec 2 at 11:50
Copy via Windows Explorer is very slow. To achieve maximum speed try FastCopy.
– harrymc
Dec 2 at 12:24
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I just got a new external USB 3.0 HDD (Seagate Expansion 6TB), formatted as NTFS. When writing large files to that HDD via the Windows 7 Professional explorer, I see very slow writing speeds according to the Windows copy "speed-o-meter" (around 32MB/s). Reading speeds (also using MS explorer) are much faster at around 97MB/s (so we can rule out that the drive is just running on USB 2).
Still there seems to be something wrong, and I wanted to compare benchmark speed numbers from the web (which say that an HDD should reach between 100 and 200MB/s) with mine. I used CrystalDiskMark 6.0 to get benchmark speed numbers. And here, in the "sequential" task I get speeds of 162MB/s read and 145MB/s write with my new HDD.
I can also rule out that the internal disk I am copying from is the bottleneck. According to the benchmark it can read at least 120MB/s.
So where does this large difference come from? Why can I not write in everyday normal file copying with similar speeds as in the benchmark?
Is it just that the Windows explorer is terrible at writing files at reasonable speeds? Or is it because the benchmark files are somehow simpler than the files in everyday use, so one typically does not reach benchmark speeds? In any case: How can I get closer to benchmark speeds when copying my files?
Thanks!
windows-7 hard-drive performance external-hard-drive speed
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
I just got a new external USB 3.0 HDD (Seagate Expansion 6TB), formatted as NTFS. When writing large files to that HDD via the Windows 7 Professional explorer, I see very slow writing speeds according to the Windows copy "speed-o-meter" (around 32MB/s). Reading speeds (also using MS explorer) are much faster at around 97MB/s (so we can rule out that the drive is just running on USB 2).
Still there seems to be something wrong, and I wanted to compare benchmark speed numbers from the web (which say that an HDD should reach between 100 and 200MB/s) with mine. I used CrystalDiskMark 6.0 to get benchmark speed numbers. And here, in the "sequential" task I get speeds of 162MB/s read and 145MB/s write with my new HDD.
I can also rule out that the internal disk I am copying from is the bottleneck. According to the benchmark it can read at least 120MB/s.
So where does this large difference come from? Why can I not write in everyday normal file copying with similar speeds as in the benchmark?
Is it just that the Windows explorer is terrible at writing files at reasonable speeds? Or is it because the benchmark files are somehow simpler than the files in everyday use, so one typically does not reach benchmark speeds? In any case: How can I get closer to benchmark speeds when copying my files?
Thanks!
windows-7 hard-drive performance external-hard-drive speed
windows-7 hard-drive performance external-hard-drive speed
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
edited Dec 2 at 11:50
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
asked Dec 2 at 11:37
Nameless
1014
1014
What is the format of the external disk - ExFAT or NTFS?
– Eugen Rieck
Dec 2 at 11:48
It's formatted as NTFS.
– Nameless
Dec 2 at 11:50
Copy via Windows Explorer is very slow. To achieve maximum speed try FastCopy.
– harrymc
Dec 2 at 12:24
add a comment |
What is the format of the external disk - ExFAT or NTFS?
– Eugen Rieck
Dec 2 at 11:48
It's formatted as NTFS.
– Nameless
Dec 2 at 11:50
Copy via Windows Explorer is very slow. To achieve maximum speed try FastCopy.
– harrymc
Dec 2 at 12:24
What is the format of the external disk - ExFAT or NTFS?
– Eugen Rieck
Dec 2 at 11:48
What is the format of the external disk - ExFAT or NTFS?
– Eugen Rieck
Dec 2 at 11:48
It's formatted as NTFS.
– Nameless
Dec 2 at 11:50
It's formatted as NTFS.
– Nameless
Dec 2 at 11:50
Copy via Windows Explorer is very slow. To achieve maximum speed try FastCopy.
– harrymc
Dec 2 at 12:24
Copy via Windows Explorer is very slow. To achieve maximum speed try FastCopy.
– harrymc
Dec 2 at 12:24
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found the answer: It's because I am trying to copy from a relatively old internal HDD, which can read up to 120MB/s in the sequential benchmark but is extremely slow reading smaller files (~1MB/s read in benchmark). I am guessing due to fragmentation etc the internal HDD is the bottleneck.
If I use my internal SSD to copy from, then I actually get very fast speeds with the new external HDD.
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1380168%2fdifference-between-benchmark-and-windows-copying-in-external-hdd-speed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found the answer: It's because I am trying to copy from a relatively old internal HDD, which can read up to 120MB/s in the sequential benchmark but is extremely slow reading smaller files (~1MB/s read in benchmark). I am guessing due to fragmentation etc the internal HDD is the bottleneck.
If I use my internal SSD to copy from, then I actually get very fast speeds with the new external HDD.
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found the answer: It's because I am trying to copy from a relatively old internal HDD, which can read up to 120MB/s in the sequential benchmark but is extremely slow reading smaller files (~1MB/s read in benchmark). I am guessing due to fragmentation etc the internal HDD is the bottleneck.
If I use my internal SSD to copy from, then I actually get very fast speeds with the new external HDD.
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found the answer: It's because I am trying to copy from a relatively old internal HDD, which can read up to 120MB/s in the sequential benchmark but is extremely slow reading smaller files (~1MB/s read in benchmark). I am guessing due to fragmentation etc the internal HDD is the bottleneck.
If I use my internal SSD to copy from, then I actually get very fast speeds with the new external HDD.
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
I found the answer: It's because I am trying to copy from a relatively old internal HDD, which can read up to 120MB/s in the sequential benchmark but is extremely slow reading smaller files (~1MB/s read in benchmark). I am guessing due to fragmentation etc the internal HDD is the bottleneck.
If I use my internal SSD to copy from, then I actually get very fast speeds with the new external HDD.
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
answered Dec 2 at 20:52
Nameless
1014
1014
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1380168%2fdifference-between-benchmark-and-windows-copying-in-external-hdd-speed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What is the format of the external disk - ExFAT or NTFS?
– Eugen Rieck
Dec 2 at 11:48
It's formatted as NTFS.
– Nameless
Dec 2 at 11:50
Copy via Windows Explorer is very slow. To achieve maximum speed try FastCopy.
– harrymc
Dec 2 at 12:24