Windows 7: What is actual SATA tranfer rate real world???

Just to make sure... this is a question regarding SATA 2.0 mechanical HDD Transfer rates. My intention is to build a list or database of actual, real world, transfer rates for mechanical SATA drives. No need to post your SSD transfer rates here.

What should a user expect transfer-wise when performing a local internal disc to disc copy on a large file, or say like when performing a backup via image?

Theoretically SATA 2.0 is good to 3Gbps... but we know that doesn't happen!

• What differences should you see with different levels of disc cache?
  
• What actual transfer rates do you get with SATA 2.0???
  
• What are you doing or using while testing?
  
• Please post your SATA 2.0 transfer rates, or comments on them.. here!
  
• Also, please post whether you are running your SATA drives in IDE or AHCI mode?

Happy to help Darryl. Can you suggest the best way to measure the transfer rate?

Some use HD Tune HD Tune website
Measures transfer rate (min, max and avg), access time, and burst rate.

Some use HD Speed HD_Speed - www.SteelBytes.com
Measures sustained and burst rates.

Some HD Tach HdTach
Measures read speed and burst rate.

I get drastically different results using each one. These tools just simulate and measure access times mostly I believe, they are not real world speed if you use other techniques like below...

Some apps will show you an average when finished as does Macrium Reflect backup imaging app.

Some, like myself, just copy a large file and measure how long it takes then resort to math! LOL! Or you can cheat and use the Transfer Time Calculator... http://www.pmarks.net/homepage/?page...program=ttcalc

If anyone has other suggestions on tools to measure HDD transfer speeds, etc. please post them here!

I was running utorrent, a-squared anti malaware, outpost firewall suite, hide my ass vpn, ccenhancer, and the usual system programs that run in the background...

EDIT: And by the way I had to use compatibility mode to use this particular program with Windows 7 X64..500gb Seagate Barracuda 7500 rpm 16mb cache....

Seagate 750GB Vertical storage and an older 160GB Seagate drive benched with HDTune.
There are settings for various KB block sizes within this utility that change the results dramatically.
I have HDTune currently set to 64KB:

Hmmmmm.... I didnt have any issues with it on my Windows 7 64bit.

That's kinda weird huh?

samsung f3

was one of the fastest drives around when i bought it almost exactly a year ago.

Hello All:

I've noticed a huge difference in the HDTune results depending on the Block size setting I use.

Should I be matching the block size setting to the default NTFS 4k Block?

What is the meaning of this?

Isn't it best to test various drives with a common file size? For example, a smaller files will transfer faster because it makes better use of the burst rate, whereas a larger file depends largerly on the sustained rate?

I remember actually writing a DOS batch file at work that used FSUTIL and a TIMETHIS command to build and test transfer rates for different files sizes across 4x15,000rpm SAS drives in a RAID0 array. I got some phenomenal speed from that BTW. Perhaps I'll bring that in and share it here?