XTuga Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Hardware Motherboard: ASUS ROG HERO VII HDD: Western Digital 1 TB Caviar Green (WDC WD10EARS-00Y5B1) Connection: SATA 3 6Gb/s Software on Windows OS: Windows 10 App to test speed: CrystalDiskMark 5.0.2 x64 App to read/write HFS+: Paragon HFS+ 10.4.0 Software on Mac OSX OS: Mac OSX 10.10.4 App to test speed: Xbench 1.3 App to write NTFS: Tuxera NTFS 2014All data (tables and graphics) are available here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxv Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Interesting, thanks for posting. I wonder why HFS+ is comparatively slower on OSX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XTuga Posted September 16, 2015 Author Share Posted September 16, 2015 Is way faster is sequencial and random 4K blocks. Just not in sequencial 256K blocks. Don't forget to see all the data in the PDF file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kynyo Posted May 2, 2016 Share Posted May 2, 2016 Interesting restults. I'll try to partition as HFS+ a portion of my drive with Paragon's new Tool called HDM, install their HFS+ driver on Windows 10 and see how it goes. If it's stable i'll leave out NTFS. They say that HFS+ driver developed by company it's pretty faster than native one from OS X. By the way, interesting results even if this topic it's a little older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0000-1248 Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Thanks for posting! Very interesting results. I would have thought that HFS+ would be faster on Mac OS X since it is natively supported, and the developers at apple would've optimized it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts