SiSoftware » Q & A : Benchmarks : Capacity vs. Cost (aka Size Efficiency)

Q & A : Benchmarks : Capacity vs. Cost (aka Size Efficiency)

CmdBuy Q & A : Benchmarks : Capacity vs. Cost (aka Size Efficiency)

What is it?

A chart, available in all benchmarks that compares the capacity of the device with its purchasing cost. It allows us to view how capacity varies with cost (i.e. how much capacity you get for your money) for different models of the same product as well as competing devices and which one is the most cost effective.

Why do we measure it?

For storage devices (memory, hard disks, etc.) the primary metric is not performance but Size Efficiency, i.e. how much capacity you get for your money.

What do the results mean?

  1. The result is a ratio of capacity (TB, GB, MB, etc) over cost (currency)
  2. As higher capacity is always better, the higher the ratio of capacity over cost the better the Cost Efficiency.

Typical Results from Chipsets & Memories on the Market

Note: Prices fluctuate all the time; the below table was correct as of December 2010, for US market, in USD, via JustRelevant and is provided as an example only. Please check prices in your own region.

Rank Chipset / Memory / Processor Size / Cost Size Efficiency Commentary
#4 amd AMD 890FX /
2x 2GB DDR3 PC3-8500 /
AMD Phenom X4 970		 4GB : 200$ (mainboard+memory cost only) 20 MB/$ The first ranked non-Intel system with an acceptable cost level.
#5 amd AMD 890FX /
2x 2GB DDR3 PC3-10600 /
AMD Phenom X6 1055		 4GB : 202$ (mainboard+memory cost only) 19.8 MB/$ This solution from AMD came on last place due to relatively high mainboard cost.
#3 intel Intel P55 /
2x 2GB DDR3 PC3-10600 /
Intel Core i5 760		 4GB : 172$ (mainboard+memory cost only) 23.3 MB/$ Very good priced system with an average cost efficiency.
#2 intel Intel P55 /
2x 2GB DDR3 PC-8500 /
Intel Core i3 550		 4GB : 170$ (mainboard+memory cost only) 23.5 MB/$ Certainly the Best Buy of this evaluation due to the very good efficiency and the lowest price.
#1 intel Intel X58 /
3x 2GB DDR3 PC3-12800 /
Intel Core i7 975		 6GB : 246$ (mainboard+memory cost only) 24.4 MB/$ Surprinsingly, the system with the highest cost has also the best efficiency.

You can check your own chipset/memory’s Size Efficiency or view how other chipsets/memory measure up using the Capacity vs Cost tab in Sandra’s benchmarks.

Typical Results from Hard Disks on the Market

Note: Prices fluctuate all the time; the below table was correct as of December 2010, for US market, in USD, via JustRelevant and is provided as an example only. Please check prices in your own region.

Rank Disk Size / Cost Size Efficiency Commentary
#2 WD WD Caviar Black SATA 7200 RPM 2TB : 180$ 11 GB/$ Fantastic cost efficiency for a classic 3’5 hard drive, not the best though.
#1 lacie LaCie Starck USB 2.0 External HDD 2TB : 153$ 13.1 GB/$ Maybe it’s the best at cost efficiency, but the USB interface doesn’t recommend it for anything other than backup.
#4 Seagate Seagate Cheetah SCSI320 15k RPM 300GB : 360$ 0.83 GB/$ A few years ago this would have been a very good choice for a business system, not anymore…
#3 Fujitsu Fujitsu MBA3300RC SAS 15k RPM 300GB : 280$ 1.07 GB/$ The new standard for enterprise hard drives has a better cost efficiency than the old SCSI320.
#5 intel Intel X25-M SATA II MLC 160GB : 416$ 0.39 GB/$ Although this brand is generally more expensive, here is ranked above the other SSD competitors in cost efficiency.
#6 Kingston Kingston SSDNow V+ SATA II MLC 256GB : 656$ 0.37 GB/$ If this evaluation would have taken into cosideration the performance, this would be a clear winner; however from the economic point of view is’t the last.

You can check your own disk’s Size Efficiency or view how other disks measure up using the Capacity vs Cost tab in Sandra’s benchmarks.

Please let us know what you thought of this article by voting using the icons/links below. Thank you for reading.

Comments are closed.