How to Use DiskBench to Benchmark Your SSD and HDD

DiskBench vs. CrystalDiskMark: Which Disk Tester Is Better?Storage performance matters. Whether you’re choosing an SSD for a laptop, tuning a NAS, or validating an external drive, synthetic and real-world tests help you understand how a drive will behave under different workloads. Two of the most commonly used free Windows utilities for disk benchmarking are DiskBench and CrystalDiskMark. This article compares them across goals, methodologies, features, accuracy, usability, and real-world relevance, and offers recommendations for different user types.

What each tool is and what it targets

• DiskBench: a lightweight utility focused on measuring real-world file copy and I/O performance. It emphasizes customizable file sizes, queue depths, and multi-threaded copy scenarios to simulate how applications and users actually move files.
• CrystalDiskMark: a long-standing synthetic benchmark that measures sequential and random read/write speeds using controllable block sizes and queue depths. It’s often used to produce comparable, repeatable numbers (e.g., sequential 1 MiB read/write or random 4 KiB Q1T1/ Q32T1 tests).

Test methodologies and what they measure

• CrystalDiskMark

  • Uses synthetic workloads: sequential (large contiguous blocks) and random (small blocks scattered across the drive).
  • Typical common tests: Seq1M Q8T1, 4K Q1T1, 4K Q32T1 — these expose maximum throughput and IOPS characteristics under different queue depths and thread counts.
  • Strength: isolates raw controller + NAND performance and compares devices under standardized conditions.
  • Limitation: synthetic I/O patterns may not reflect real-world file copy behavior.

• DiskBench

  • Runs real-file operations: copying, moving, and reading/writing actual files with realistic sizes and distributions.
  • Often configurable for number of files, sizes, parallel threads, and directory structures—helpful for reproducing user workflows (e.g., many small files vs. few large files).
  • Strength: high real-world relevance — measures how the OS, filesystem, cache, and storage interact during typical tasks.
  • Limitation: results depend on file set, filesystem layout, OS caching, and background tasks, so results can be less reproducible than synthetic tests.

Metrics reported and how to interpret them

• CrystalDiskMark

  • Reports MB/s for sequential and random tests, plus IOPS for small-block random tests (can be computed from MB/s and block size).
  • Useful for placing the drive on vendor/specification charts (e.g., advertised sequential speeds).
  • Interpreting: high Seq MB/s → better large-file throughput (video, large archives). High 4K Q1T1 IOPS → better responsiveness for small random reads/writes (OS, application launches).

• DiskBench

  • Reports elapsed time and effective MB/s when copying or moving files, plus per-file or per-run breakdowns.
  • Interpreting: shorter elapsed time and higher effective MB/s in a file-copy test means the drive and system handle that real workload faster. Watch for large variance across runs (indicates caching effects or thermal throttling).

Factors affecting results (and how each tool deals with them)

• OS cache and buffering

  • CrystalDiskMark offers options to test with or without cache effects (e.g., Test data, NVMe direct I/O options in newer builds or using larger dataset sizes to exceed cache).
  • DiskBench’s file copy tests often interact heavily with the OS cache; unless datasets exceed RAM and the drive’s cache, results may show mostly cache speed.

• Drive internal caching and SLC caching

  • Both tools can be affected by drive-level caches. Synthetic tests that write large sequential data can exhaust SLC cache and reveal sustained speeds; small random tests may stay within cache and overstate long-term behavior.
  • Use large dataset sizes and multiple runs to stress and reveal sustained performance.

• Queue depth and parallelism

  • CrystalDiskMark explicitly configures queue depth (Q) and threads (T) to show performance under parallel load (important for NVMe).
  • DiskBench can simulate multiple parallel copy threads to model concurrent transfers, though it’s more focused on file patterns than queue-depth microbenchmarks.

• File size and file count distribution

  • DiskBench shines at demonstrating how many small files vs. few large files behave; small-file workloads typically cause much slower throughput than large-block sequential tests in CrystalDiskMark.

Usability and reporting

• CrystalDiskMark

  • Simple UI, many presets, easy to produce standard screenshots for comparisons.
  • Standardized tests make it easy to compare devices and to replicate across systems.
  • Portable builds available; widely used in reviews and spec sheets.

• DiskBench

  • More oriented to custom scenarios: choose file sets, folder trees, and parallel copies.
  • Results are intuitive for end users because they map directly to common tasks (copying photos, moving project folders, backing up).
  • Less “industry standard” so results aren’t as directly comparable across reviewers unless test files and settings are shared.

Accuracy, repeatability, and best practices

• For repeatable comparison testing:

  • Use CrystalDiskMark for consistent synthetic metrics. Run multiple passes, ensure background processes are minimized, and use the same test settings (block sizes, queue depth).
  • Use DiskBench to validate real-world performance using the same file sets and run order. Ensure dataset sizes are large enough to avoid RAM and drive cache domination if you want sustained speed measurements.

• To reveal sustained vs. burst performance:

  • Run long sequential writes (large file set) in CrystalDiskMark or DiskBench until the throughput stabilizes to observe SLC/DRAM exhaustion and thermal throttling effects.

• To test small-file responsiveness:

  • Use DiskBench with many small files and measure elapsed time; corroborate with CrystalDiskMark’s 4K Q1T1 tests for IOPS numbers.

When to use each — practical recommendations

• Use CrystalDiskMark when:

  • You need standardized numbers for comparisons or to verify vendor claims (sequential MB/s, random IOPS).
  • You’re benchmarking NVMe devices where queue depth and parallelism matter.
  • You want a quick, reproducible synthetic snapshot.

• Use DiskBench when:

  • You want to know how a drive performs for realistic tasks: copying photo libraries, project folders, backups.
  • You need to validate a storage solution for a specific workflow (many small files, mixed file sizes, multi-threaded transfers).
  • You’re testing end-user perceived speed and task completion times.

Example scenarios

• Upgrading a laptop OS drive (responsiveness matters): run CrystalDiskMark 4K Q1T1 and DiskBench small-file copy tests. CrystalDiskMark will show IOPS; DiskBench shows real copy time for your profile.
• Choosing a drive for video editing (large files): rely heavily on sequential tests in CrystalDiskMark plus DiskBench large-file copy to ensure sustained throughput.
• NAS or server workloads with concurrent clients: use CrystalDiskMark with higher queue depths and DiskBench with parallel copies to simulate multiple users.

Summary comparison table

Final verdict

Neither tool is strictly “better” universally — they serve complementary purposes.

• If you need standardized, repeatable synthetic metrics (for specs, reviews, or low-level device characterization), CrystalDiskMark is the better choice.
• If you care about how drives behave in actual file operations that affect real users, DiskBench is better for that practical perspective.

For a complete evaluation, use both: CrystalDiskMark to understand raw throughput and IOPS characteristics, and DiskBench to verify how that performance translates into time-to-complete real tasks.