Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: FAT32 x NTFS - here are some numbers...

Author: Aloisio Ponti Lopes

Date: 16:24:54 11/29/01

Go up one level in this thread


On November 29, 2001 at 12:38:05, Roy Eassa wrote:
>
>For example, would converting to NTFS 'break' any chess engines that FAT32 does
>not break?  Would it make tablebase access slower? Faster??

It would be definitely SLOWER than FAT32. It doesn't matter what kind of program
you're using - Word, Excel, Photoshop, games, Chess, take your choice, NTFS _IS_
 slower.

Using an IBM 75GXP 15 Gb hard disk, Pentium III 700 with ABIT-BX133 motherboard,
192 MB RAM, Video ELSA Erazor III 32 MB, Windows 2000 Professional, some
benchmarks:

1) Winbench 99 v1.1 - Disk WinMark 99 (more is better)
   -Business aplications: FAT32= 10500     NTFS=7240

   -High-End aplications: FAT32=24225      NTFS=18600


Those "High-End aplications" are: (more is better)

AVS/Express: FAT32=27425   NTFS=21100
FrontPage 98: FAT32=153250 NTFS=92125
Microstation SE: FAT32=41925 NTFS=29200
Photoshop4: FAT32=9928 NTFS=9005
Premiere 4.2: FAT32=19450 NTFS=13475
SoundForge 4.0: FAT32=29675 NTFS=23450
Visual C++ 5.0: FAT32=27550 NTFS=17825

All these tests were repeated 4 times.

CONCLUSION: Using business programs (Word, Excel, etc.) FAT32 performance is 45%
superior. Using high-end programs, FAT32 is 30% superior.

I agree that NTFS is better for security purposes, but... not for Chess, because
it's definitely SLOWER.

A. Ponti






This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.