Local Disk D is faster than Local Disk C

[scritous]

 

[AsRock]

Less data on D than C ?, and really only the 4K matters and they are about the same which is to be expected.

 

[Solaris17]

Thats a pretty cool story.

Less data on D than C ?, and really only the 4K matters and they are about the same which is to be expected.

looking at the size they also appear to be completely different disks.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Are both of these volumes on the same 500 GB HDD? If yes, the volume (in this case that would be D:) that has the lowest sectors will always be faster because they're at the outer edge of the platter.

 

[AsRock]

Thats a pretty cool story.



looking at the size they also appear to be completely different disks.

Good point, but will not be the 1st time i have seen some one with the max portions on a HDD.

Are both of these volumes on the same 500 GB HDD? If yes, the volume (in this case that would be D:) that has the lowest sectors will always be faster because they're at the outer edge of the platter.

That it should now you bring it up, how ever it would all so depend on fragmentation as well and what condition the C part of the drive is compared to the D partition as C partition could have more warn sectors and even replaced ones from the reserve.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm 80% sure it is a 500 GB which is 465.66 GiB with two partitions:
D: 315 GiB (outer sectors)
C: 150 GiB (inner sectors)
Total: 465 GiB

540 MB Maxtor Hard Disk Drive Running WITHOUT A COVER!

 

[AsRock]

I'm 80% sure it is a 500 GB which is 465.66 GiB with two partitions:
D: 315 GiB (outer sectors)
C: 150 GiB (inner sectors)
Total: 465 GiB

540 MB Maxtor Hard Disk Drive Running WITHOUT A COVER!

Yes a little to convenient.

i have noticed partition sizes can gain \ loss speed depending on there sizes although that was with raid but i bet it can effect a single drive too.

 

[scritous]

Less data on D than C ?, and really only the 4K matters and they are about the same which is to be expected.

Absolutely less data on D as percent and size, both.

Are both of these volumes on the same 500 GB HDD? If yes, the volume (in this case that would be D:) that has the lowest sectors will always be faster because they're at the outer edge of the platter.

Yes. It's Seagate Barracuda 500GB ST500DM002.

Can I get more speed on C? Should\Can I use D as my Game Directory?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Absolutely less data on D as percent and size, both.


Yes. It's Seagate Barracuda 500GB ST500DM002.

Can I get more speed on C? Should\Can I use D as my Game Directory?

Just dont run it partitioned and for god sakes get an SSD as your C drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=20-147-544

 

[newtekie1]

You have to also remember that the C drive will always benchmark slightly slower because it is in use by Windows and any programs you have open in the background while you are running the benchmark.

I'm 80% sure it is a 500 GB which is 465.66 GiB with two partitions:
D: 315 GiB (outer sectors)
C: 150 GiB (inner sectors)
Total: 465 GiB

Usually, the C drive is at the beginning of the drive, because it was created first. So it is in the faster outer area by nature.

Just dont run it partitioned and for god sakes get an SSD as your C drive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=20-147-544

For that price he might as well get a 240GB SSD...

 

[MxPhenom 216]

You have to also remember that the C drive will always benchmark slightly slower because it is in use by Windows and any programs you have open in the background while you are running the benchmark.



Usually, the C drive is at the beginning of the drive, because it was created first. So it is in the faster outer area by nature.



For that price he might as well get a 240GB SSD...

Sure. He just needs to get an ssd.

 

[Komshija]

That's a 500GB HDD. Such speed differences can occur depending on how much data is allocated on a certain partition. Once you pass certain percentage of filled data, HDD will become slightly slower, but in real world such differences are barely noticeable. It's OK.

 

[Jetster]

That's a 500GB HDD. Such speed differences can occur depending on how much data is allocated on a certain partition. Once you pass certain percentage of filled data, HDD will become slightly slower, but in real world such differences are barely noticeable. It's OK.

No, the outer part of the platter is faster.

scritous, the drive speed difference is negligible. Your grasping at straws. If you want fast then get an SSD

 

[R-T-B]

Sure. He just needs to get an ssd.

Meh, cost anaylsis led me to dump my SSD recently. I've barely noticed if I'm being frank. They aren't the end all in tech.

If however, he's after more data transfer speed, then yes, SSD is the ultimate way he'll get it.

 

[Komshija]

No, the outer part of the platter is faster.

HDD's usually fill-up fastest portions first, so it's unlikely that almost full HDD will be faster than almost empty.

 

[Frick]

Meh, cost anaylsis led me to dump my SSD recently. I've barely noticed if I'm being frank. They aren't the end all in tech.

... this is such a strange statement.

 

[EarthDog]

Meh, cost anaylsis led me to dump my SSD recently. I've barely noticed if I'm being frank. They aren't the end all in tech.

LOL....wow. you can sit in the empty section of those that went back to a HDD because they didn't notice a difference... wow.

... this is such a strange statement.

+1

 

[R-T-B]

I never said I was normal... and it's not that I didn't notice a difference. It's that it wasn't $300.00 worth difference. The money was reinvested in a nice video card. That, I felt.

... this is such a strange statement.

I'm sorry, I'll try to remember to be more compliant to social norms the next time I speak.

 

[EarthDog]

Social norms have nothing to do with it.. Just facts and performance is why it is 'strange'.

You though figured out it wasn't worth it FOR YOU...and that is of course OK. It is just an opinion held by few.

 

[R-T-B]

Social norms have nothing to do with it.. Just facts and performance is why it is 'strange'.

You though figured out it wasn't worth it FOR YOU...and that is of course OK. It is just an opinion held by few.

Tell me, how many FPS does an SSD give me?

There's no facts and performance to prove an SSD is better if I get to chose what metric matters to me. That's my point. They aren't the (may I quote myself?) "end all in tech." That's a very generic statement, but from the way some people deify them, you'd think it was true.

So yes, social norms do have something to do with it. You find it strange because no one dare badmouths SSD tech on a forum about technology, regardless of the metric we're using.

I did admit in the same post if IO transfer speed matters, SSD is definitely the way to go.

 

[EarthDog]

You don't need to justify your stance... its OK. You chose FPS over an SSD. THis is a common choice. But when it comes down to it, if you bought an SSD for FPS (not saying you did) 'you' are an idiot. Its not meant to increase FPS. But if its between playable FPS and an SSD, Im going for playable FPS as well. If I was in your shoes, I would have went with 16GB of ram and bought an SSD for the OS. ... that is of courrse assuming you don't need more than 16Gb.

I have like systems. One uses an SSD to boot, the other still on HDD (my kids PC and HTPC). And man can I tell a difference there with load times of software/apps/games and overall desktop snappyness (yay subjective things!).

 

[R-T-B]

You don't need to justify your stance... its OK. You chose FPS over an SSD. THis is a common choice. But when it comes down to it, if you bought an SSD for FPS (not saying you did) 'you' are an idiot. Its not meant to increase FPS. But if its between playable FPS and an SSD, Im going for playable FPS as well. If I was in your shoes, I would have went with 16GB of ram and bought an SSD for the OS. ... that is of courrse assuming you don't need more than 16Gb.

There's more to the story, but it's OT for here.

Short version is I need a hardware encrypted drive for my work files (silly requirement when we have things like truecrypt, but w/e), and unfortunately, Samsung decided to just never deliver on it's OPAL promise via a firmware update so I had to decide between having two drives (one for work and one for home) or just upgrading my video card to something else and going with my OPAL ready enterprise HDD I had sitting on the shelf.

You can guess which way I went. BTW, where's the outcry that Samsung never did that promised firmware update? Come on TPU, toot the horn for me.

But we're way off topic now, so I'll shutup.

 

[Toothless]

There's more to the story, but it's OT for here.

Short version is I need a hardware encrypted drive for my work files (silly requirement when we have things like truecrypt, but w/e), and unfortunately, Samsung decided to just never deliver on it's OPAL promise via a firmware update so I had to decide between having two drives (one for work and one for home) or just upgrading my video card to something else and going with my OPAL ready enterprise HDD I had sitting on the shelf.

You can guess which way I went. BTW, where's the outcry that Samsung never did that promised firmware update? Come on TPU, toot the horn for me.

But we're way off topic now, so I'll shutup.

I agree with you but my reasoning has a twist; i got an ssd for the boot times and snappyness. If i cared about FPS then yeah by all means let's get them geepeeyoos shoved in but I'll be keeping an ssd because dammit i wanna play now.

Toot toot.

EDIT: I forgot to mention on one rig the game bots i run will actually bog down an HDD and make the rig unusable, I've done it before so all commonly used compoopers have ssds.

Toooooooooot.