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

SATA II HDDs different average read?

Discussion in 'Storage' started by Widjaja, May 25, 2008.

  1. Widjaja

    Widjaja

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,815 (1.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    640
    Location:
    Wangas, New Zealand
    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?
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. farlex85

    farlex85

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,829 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    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.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  3. Widjaja

    Widjaja

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,815 (1.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    640
    Location:
    Wangas, New Zealand
    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.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  4. farlex85

    farlex85

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,829 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    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.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  5. panchoman

    panchoman Sold my stars!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,595 (2.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,201
    the 2nd one also has extra cache
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  6. Widjaja

    Widjaja

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,815 (1.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    640
    Location:
    Wangas, New Zealand

    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.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  7. farlex85

    farlex85

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,829 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    637
    Yeah, cache actually adds little to performance in many cases. And at 160gb, there is no need for more than 8mb.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  8. freaksavior

    freaksavior To infinity ... and beyond!

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,086 (2.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    915
    cache is a major part of it. also platter size, rpm, and recording types, ect. thats sound about right tbh.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  9. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,404 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    683
    Higher density per platter = higher speeds...because the head can pickup more data (mb) in the same amount of time (s).

    speed = mb/s
     
    10 Year Member at TPU

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