SATA II HDDs different average read?

[Widjaja]

My 160GB WD 8mb cache has an average read of 52mb sec.
My 320GB WD 16mb cache has an average read of 89mb sec.

Both being SATA II I would expect them to have around the same average read.

Is this difference normal?

 

[farlex85]

Companies make different caliber drives. That 320gb I'm suspecting is the se16, one of the fastest 7200rpm on the market. Spin speed would be another thing, if the first is 5400-7200rpm it will be slower.

 

[Widjaja]

I don't know if this is any help to better explain but here's what they read as in Device Manager

160GB:-WDC WD1600JS-00NCB1

320GB:-WDC WD3200AAKS-00B3A0

And also I do notice a performance gain with the 320GB HDD when loading in games.

 

[farlex85]

Can't find that first drive in other places. I am assuming it uses 2 80gb platters, the second uses 1 320 gb platter. This makes the second one faster just on that. The first is I imagine of an older tech too, although thats as specific as I can get about it, others may be able to tell you more. But no, it is normal, the second drive is simply better.

 

[panchoman]

the 2nd one also has extra cache

 

[Widjaja]

Can't find that first drive in other places. I am assuming it uses 2 80gb platters, the second uses 1 320 gb platter. This makes the second one faster just on that. The first is I imagine of an older tech too, although thats as specific as I can get about it, others may be able to tell you more. But no, it is normal, the second drive is simply better.

I think you maybe right about the 2 - 80GB platters whatever that is.
Reason being is the 160GB HDD had an avg read the same as my 80GB IDE despite the burst rate being higher.

Also yes you are correct, the 160GB HDD is older tech and still has the legacy 4pin molex power connector while the 320GB HDD does not.

@Pancho
I saw no difference in performance in game between the 160 SATA II 8mb cache and the 80GB IDE with 2mb cache so I don't think it was the cache causing the issue.

 

[farlex85]

Yeah, cache actually adds little to performance in many cases. And at 160gb, there is no need for more than 8mb.

 

[freaksavior]

cache is a major part of it. also platter size, rpm, and recording types, ect. thats sound about right tbh.

 

[ktr]

Higher density per platter = higher speeds...because the head can pickup more data (mb) in the same amount of time (s).

speed = mb/s