The numbers were all over the place, so lets take a look at why they might be the way they are.įirst and foremost, since we are using mechanical drives and not solid-state storage, seek times and the like come into effect. Your mileage may vary, of course, as there are quite a few variables at play here. Our test wasn’t anywhere near scientific, but we did our best to make sure we could rule out interference while still trying to emulate some real-world use. On the other hand, when copying a large amount of smaller files, TeraCopy seems to have the edge.
#Teracopy for windows 7 windows
It seems that copying large individual files works best using Windows 7’s copying ability, at least if speed is what counts. I did like the steady transfer speeds, though, so this might be noteworthy if you’re paranoid about backups. However, copying from B to C took 4:01, significantly longer than either TeraCopy or Windows.Ģ4 Gb of smaller files took the longest, at about 19:20 from A to B and 18:53 from B to C. Copying 4.4 GB from A to B took 3:21, beating out TeraCopy for second-place. It never dipped too low, even towards the end of the longer copying process, and stayed between 22 MB/s and 18 MB/s. While using SuperCopier, I immediately noticed the sustained transfer speeds. It was like a roller coaster, going anywhere from as high as 31 MB/s down to 12 MB/s. The rate would drop sharply at times to half, then shoot up for a brief time only to even out a bit. The transfer speeds fluctuated quite a bit compared to Windows 7’s copying mechanism. While copying 24 GB of smaller files, however, TeraCopy undercut Windows with 17:32 from A to B and 17:02 from B to C. Copying the 4.4 GB file took longer than Windows did, at 3:41 from A to B and 2:53 from B to C. Testing TeraCopy yielded some interesting results. In numbers, this was roughly 26 MB/s down to about 17 MB/s. The one thing that seemed pretty consistent was that as the transfer pushed forward, the rate of transfer would drop over time, ending at about 2/3 of what it initially was at. When copying 24 GB of my music collection, the process took 18:21 from A to B, and 18:09 from B to C. Windows 7 seems to prove itself with large files. Copying a single 4.4 GB file from A to B took only 3:13 and copying from B to C took 2:42.
#Teracopy for windows 7 windows 7
The default Windows 7 copier proved to be pretty snappy. I did my best for you readers, and ultimately it came down to the copying programs themselves. This minimized the influence of pre-caching before hitting the Start button on each. I also configured TeraCopy and SuperCopier to be the default copiers, and I clocked from the time I hit Ctrl+V. A clean reboot ensured near-optimal performance for each task. Copying the files in order the same way each time discounted any advantage one program would have had over another by way of caching. External A was a 2 TB internal drive in an enclosure, and external C was a 750 GB store-bought drive. All of the drives I ran this test on were 7200 RPM hard drives and had a cache of 8 MB. Why did I decide to do that? Well, there are quite a few factors to this test, including hard drive speeds. The 24 GB folder was a portion of my music collection, mostly. The 4.4GB file I used was my Wii disc backup of Donkey Kong Country Returns. The external drives were ejected and the system was rebooted between testing each program. This was done in order for each of the copying methods. And lastly, copied that folder from my internal drive to external C. Then, I copied a 24 GB folder (3300 files, with an average size of about 8 MB) from external A to my internal drive, B. Then, I copied that file to another external hard drive, C. First, I copied a file of 4.4 GB from one external hard drive, A, to my internal one, B. In order to test fairly, I ran four distinct copy actions with each program and with the default Windows 7 copy function.
0 kommentar(er)
