Access time Vs Read/Write speeds...

Hi,

I upgraded from the 7k200 travelstar to 7k500 and use the 200 as an external now. But, I'm planning on running both on my thinkpad via the ultrabay adapter...

The access time of the 7k200 travelstar is quicker than the 7k500 (I actually noticed a difference when I moved from the the 200 to the 500 - the 200 felt just a tiny bit snappier) . While the overall read write speeds are significantly higher on the 500.

So, I wanted to know what effect the properties of access time and read/write speeds will have on the OS and as a scratch drive for photoshop and general performance of the system? Basically, whate are the pros and cons of either drives in such different scenarios?

Thanks!

 

bump!

hope someone can answer it this time! i noticed my last post was kind of a rant so i edited it.

 

In reality the 7K500 will almost always be faster than the 7K200. The read speeds are that much higher that it outweighs the difference in access times.

See Tomshardware review of the 7K500 vs. 7K200 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/notebook-hdd-upgrade,2543-7.html

I'd like you to repeat that test blind folded

In other words I think you may be experiencing a placebo effect.

 

That's because for typical notebook usage, latency, i.e. how fast data can be found, is more important than the throughput. Web browsing, media or office, etc., just don't push much data through the controller, but how fast something can be found, will yield a more noticeable difference. Now if you're doing something with heavy read/write operations, like copy/past files, the Hitachi should be much faster.

 

Thanks for the replies guys.

Phil, when I bought the 7k500, I was expecting it to be a lot quicker than my 7k200! I wasn't even aware that there was a difference in response time... but maybe I was expecting my computer to be a lot quicker with the 500 that I was let down a bit. Only recently, I discovered that my old 7k200 had one of the fastest response times on a laptop hard drive! But the link you posted has made me very happy! maybe it was cos i was expecting it to be unrealistically faster (cos it went past the 100MB/s barrier! ) that it fell just a bit below my expectations! But looking at your post, I'm actually quite surprised by how close the older 200 is to the newer 500 drive!

Zaz, sorry if my post was misleading, but both the drives are hitachis - one is a 7k200 and the other a 7k500. I don't mind a slower web experience... but for photoshop, rhino, hypershot and other similar apps, am I right in assuming that a quick response time would help quicker loading of the programs and in the process feel a bit snappier, but when it comes down to the performance in for eg. photoshop, where a lot of reading/writing is going on, the extra bandwidth of the 7k500 gives it a significant advantage?

 

I'm pretty sure the 7K500 loads all programs quicker than the 7K200. Just look at the benchmarks I ran between WD3200bekt and 7K500. The WD has very fast acces times AND reads way faster than a 7K200. Yet it looses in most situations to the 7K500
http://www.storagereview.com/ultima...tal_scorpio_black_vs_hitachi_travelstar_7k500

And before I believe any human being can "feel" the difference between a 7K200 and 7K500 while surfing the web I would need to see a blindfolded test

 

Benchmarks mean little in real world usage. There's probably something else causing the 7k200 to feel faster, but I'd agree the marginal difference is very small.

 

Thanks for the replies again guys!

Phil, thanks for the review again, it was a great read... for my usage pattern, I think my current 7k500 is the faster option as I don't multi task while I'm working. I tend to use only one of the big apps at a time. When I'm browsing/ playing music etc, then speed isn't critical for me so basically, i'm convinced now that my drive is very capable of handling my work requirements, THANK YOU!

ZaZ, I agree, maybe there was a tiny difference or maybe I was just expecting the 500 to be better than it was over the 200! But that due to the complexity of their workings, they can excel at different aspects as discussed in the above review... even if its by small margins.

I have one last question - I've partitioned my 7k500 to 85 GB and 390 GB partitions... Would this have any impact at all on drive performance?

 

You're welcome. As long as you use the first partition as system drive (C: ) you're fine.

Actually my review contains only hand times measurements of real world usage. Maybe I should not have used the word benchmarks.

 

Super! Thanks for the help guys!