VOGONS

Search

Common searches

Reliable Windows 98 storage benchmark

Topic actions

First post, by ruthan

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Hello,
im searching for some reliable Win98 storage benchmark, i have problem to find something, i used Atto benchmark, but its reports bad results - i dunno because of cache or used controllers or HDD, but it reports up to 1 GB/s on Sata II.. or just because it is bugged, or i have old version.. what is not sense.

So i need something else, i dont need something too complex, on modern windows im ok with Crystal Disk Mark, i just need speed for sequential and random reads / writes - big and small blocks.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 2 of 6, by GL1zdA

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Have you tried an older version of Crystal Disk Mark? I know 3.0.4 works on Windows 2000, not sure about Win98. The archive is here: http://crystalmark.info/download/archive/CrystalDiskMark/

getquake.gif | InfoWorld/PC Magazine Indices

Reply 4 of 6, by ruthan

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Phil is usually good place.. but not for this.. there is 2x same Road Kill - and i tried it few days ago with real Socket 7 machines + 40 GB IDE Seagate, UDMA 33 were enabled and it really report other number in every run.. with growing size of data block im getting few normal results.. after that one results is very bad lesser than smaller blocks (17 MB/s vs. 1 MB/s or something else).. and after that again normal results.. Usually 2/3 rows are just nonsense and which ones its different in every run..
Atto benchmark also reporting very strange numbers for memory card adapters - too high, some for SSD on Sata.

All these numbers are maybe strange because of some Win98 cache mechanism.. but from my experience are not valid for other more modern operation systems, DOS and even not for real user data copy experience.. they seems to look like some synthetic mistake..

It could be in theory problem with my systems, which had lots of mem.. even my SS7 machine is fully loaded to 768 MB.. Otherwise im using 1024 MB limit, no rLoew patches are involved. I have some results on SP3 system and on some clean too.. DMA is enabled every time.

If numbers are ok, at least for some systems would be good hint..

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 5 of 6, by maxtherabbit

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I like sisoft sandra for most windows based retro benchmarks

There is also Atto Disk Benchmarl, but I'm sure sure where to find a version that runs on 9x, or if one even exists

Reply 6 of 6, by ruthan

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Not bad for Windows 98:)

PassThrough.png
Filename
PassThrough.png
File size
26.73 KiB
Views
2895 views
File license
CC-BY-4.0

I still have my doubts about measurement accuracy, but these are consistent and numbers seems nice:)
I managed it through KVM Win98 pass through some cheap NVME drive.. details are here:
KVM(QEMU) Win98 videocard passthrough.I finally got it working- with full 3D API support Quake III 1600x1200 90+ FPS!

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Back to Software
Close window
Close window