1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

500gb/7200rpm/16mb vs. 500gb/7200/32mb cache

Discussion in 'Storage' started by puma99dk|, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    Whick will be fastest for Windows 7 OS with Gaming Disk?

    i have a plan of 100gb for OS and the rest for Games.

    at the moment i use a Western Digital Green 500gb with 7200rpm and 16mb cache for OS/Gaming would a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500gb 7200rpm and 32mb cache be faster with Windows 7 and Games?

    i am asking 'cause i am not sure even than i had looked at Tom's Hardware Chart :(

    so a little help would be nice :)
     
  2. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    You won't notice a difference.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  3. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    other than my WDC use less power than my Seagate :laugh:
     
  4. 3dsage

    3dsage New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,797 (0.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    330
    Location:
    NW Burbs of Chicago
    I think you should skip the 7200.11 and go straight to the 7200.12, its alot faster and its reliable. I had my 7200.11 fail in less than 2 weeks, the access times where sluggish and it had the latest firmware.

    Also the 7200.12 had higher AVG. Transfer rates than my 300GB Velociraptor. Only Alot slower Acces times.

    7200.12
    [​IMG]
    7200.11
    [​IMG]
     
  5. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    now i only have a Seagate 7200.11 or a WDC Green both 500gb and i won't buy a new 500gb 'cause for less than 200DKR i can buy a 1TB hdd like i orded yesterday and got it today.

    it's wierd it's only some 7200.11 that have failures and i most be one of the lucky ones 'cause my 7200.11 haven't made any wierd things yet \o/
     
  6. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,965 (6.17/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,047
    Wait...I thought the Western Digital Green drives ran at something lower than 7200RPM...

    Sorry, I missed that you were using a WD Green, in that case go with the Seagate it should be noticeably faster.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  7. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    one on Tweak.dk's forum says that it won't be notice if i change from my WDC Green 7200rpm, 16mb cache to my Seagate 7200rpm, 32mb cache so now i don't know what to believe :wtf:
     
  8. angelkiller

    angelkiller

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Location:
    North Carolina
    WD Green drives spin at 5400rpm. But due to platter density, performance is decent.

    However, a standard 7200rpm drive with 320GB/platter or greater will be faster. The difference is about 20MB/s on average. If you're looking for the fastest drive, the 7200rpm Seagate will be faster. Generally speaking a 7200rpm drive will outperform a 5400rpm one.

    And assuming what games you play, you will notice the difference. Games that access the disk often will benefit from a faster drive. For example, loading levels is pretty disk intensive.

    That Seagate 500GB 7200.12 posted above looks pretty nice.
     
  9. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    the WDC Caviar Green uses IntelliPower so it spins at 5400-7200rpm depending on what it's working on maybe that's why i score 5,9 in Windows 7 WEI 'cause i over run a WDC Caviar Blue in Windows 7 WEI it only scores 5,4.

    Will i get to Score 6,0 in Windows 7 WEI by chaning my OS/Gaming Disk to my Seagate 7200.11 or will it be the same?
     
  10. angelkiller

    angelkiller

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Unfortunately, that's not true. IntelliPower is WD's marketing term which basically says the drive spins at 5400rpm or 7200rpm, but it doesn't specify which. However, one sure shot way to determine how fast a drive is spinning is to analyze the frequnecies of the noise it generates. Different rpms produce different frequencies of noise. You can't really argue with that because that's physics.


    I can't really say much about the WEI scores. I don't know how WEI measures performance. However, I can tell you the difference in performance based off bandwidth and access times. How about this, you download HD Tune and run a benchmark. Then I'll show you the same benchmark run on other drives so you can compare them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2009
  11. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    What can i use a benchmark for if the disk i wanna use i empty and doesn't have a OS on it?

    isn't a disk with OS that runs alot of programs slowere than a HDD with nothing on and not in-use?

    Seagate 7200.11

    [​IMG]

    WDC Green

    [​IMG]

    (Another thing my WDC is split in 3 partitions at the moment)
     

    Attached Files:

  12. angelkiller

    angelkiller

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I see what you mean about the disk with an OS on it being slower. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that. It would make sense that the disk with the OS on it would be slower, but the benchmark may be set up so that it doesn't matter. I'm not sure.

    Anyway, your results look just as I expected. Look at the average transfer rate of the two drives. The Seagate is about 20MB/s on average. (just as I predicted) The Seagate also has a lower access time, by almost 3ms. So the Seagate is 30% faster in sequential reads and has about a 20% faster access time.

    That is a significant difference imo. If I were you, I would make the Seagate your OS drive and the WD Green as your backup or storage drive. The Seagate is on average 20MB/s faster on any point on the disk. So if the drives were put into 2 identical computers, the computer with the Seagate could access data at 20MB/s faster. PLUS, the Seagate has a faster access time. So when both drives have to look for something, the Seagate will get there faster, then deliver the data at a higher rate than the WD Green drive. Now imagine that happenning 100 times in a row. Do you see how the advantage would be compounded? The Seagate would finish will beat the WD Green every time. The Seagate is clearly the faster drive, you can see the numbers right in front of you.

    Does that make sense?
     
  13. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    it does make sense i don't hope the speed will fall then i install Windows 7 i can always test it 'cause i got 2x1TB i use for data in the moment so it only takes time to install and test :rolleyes:

    another question does it make the disk slower it's connect to Channel 5 than in Channel 0?
     
  14. subhendu

    subhendu New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    488 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    33
    western digital caviar blue is the best.....
     
  15. angelkiller

    angelkiller

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Or you could clone your WD Green to the Seagate and then you would have 2 identical disks. Then you could see which one is faster. (Boot one disk, time how long it takes to do stuff, boot the other disk, time how long it takes to do stuff, then compare the times)

    It makes no difference between Channel 0 and Channel 5. Each Sata port/channel are exactly the same.
     
  16. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    Fresh Windows 7 x86 Build 7600 installed and activated.

    KAV, Daemon Tools installed... like all the drivers i use...

    and the test now looks like this, and i spilt the hdd in 2 partitions... Partition 1 OS and 2 Games....

    [​IMG]

    and before where is was un-used:

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    angelkiller says thanks.
  17. angelkiller

    angelkiller

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Well then. I've learned something today. You've just proven that a HD Tune benchmark is slower on a drive that is running an OS on it. Of course it made sense in speculation, but you've run the tests to prove it.

    But what I said still stands though. The Seagate is still faster than the WD Green.
     
  18. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,378 (1.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    762
    yup, but WEI in Windows 7 is still at 5,9 so it doesn't really matter you go from 5400-7200rpm and 16mb cache to 7200rpm and 32mb cache...
     
  19. angelkiller

    angelkiller

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Location:
    North Carolina
    But remember, that's only in WEI.... Every synthetic benchmark will show that the Seagate is faster. Plus in disk intensive tasks, the Seagate will finish quicker.

    I think the WEI shows that for average usage, both drives are about equal. And I would agree with that. If all you do is web browsing and check your email, you won't notice the difference. But if you want the better performing drive, it's the Seagate.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page