HD Tune, CrystalDiskMark for Hitachi 7K500 found

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/guineness/20090920/1253376136
http://www.o-rz.net/index.php?itemid=629

Enjoy.

 

Looks promising... 16.7ms

Sequential Read : 106.640 MB/s
Sequential Write : 105.491 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 41.027 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 51.868 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 0.603 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 1.224 MB/s
Test Size : 100 MB

vs. mine: 17.2ms, 52/53, 24/38, 0.4/1.3

Doubles performance against the WD3200BEVT (320GB 5400RPM) in sequentials.

 

If those are true it would be very fast.

Here's a WD6400BEVT CrystalMark.

 

The sequential read/write speeds don't mean much. Computers rarely read sequentially for very long. Think about it. If you are reading a 50MB file (how often do you do that?) and if the file is located on the very outside of the platter and if the file is sequential on the disk (a big if for a 50MB file), the difference between 90MB/sec and 105MB/sec means opening the file in .48 seconds vs .56.

If Windows or the app needs to read two dozen other files in connection with opening that 50MB file, then the the action is entirely dependent upon the speed of locating and loading those other files.

The only measure that really counts is the 4k speed. See Anandtech for the research on solid state disks.

 

While it's true that 4K speeds are important, it's not the only measure of performance. Good SSDs are well above any traditional HDDs in this arena, but most users can only afford HDDs, where 4K speeds aren't significantly different. Though not everyone transfers 20+GB (including large 2-11GB files) of data a day on their hard drive, some do and sequential read and write speeds are important. Compared to my hard drive, the new 7K500 is twice as fast in that respect and instead of taking 8+ hours to transfer files around, 4 hours is a significant amount of time. If it were truly useless, no software would measure it.

 

Wow, what do you do for work that you transfer files for 8 hours a day?

And why on earth are you using a laptop?

 

And if you are transferring files for 8 hours a day for work, it would seem that an SSD would make financial sense, unless you're paid less than $1/hr.

 

Ooh, benchies
I am holding off on this model, going to get an SSD next for my Dell.

Hitachi is supposed to have a 600gb 15K drive announced soon, I hope its decently priced, for my homemade lappy

K-TRON

 

I live on an island for medical school and it's not feasible to bring my desktop. I work for a friend who makes MCAT videos so I get sent a lot of medical related videos to review. I don't have that much transfer constantly every day, but I was using those numbers as an extreme example of a situation where sequential speeds are important. I know others who do video editing and require lots of space and the majority of the population aren't willing to drop that much money on a SSD at the moment.

 

You do need a lot of space as uncompressed source material and intermediate files for even a 15-minute video can easily exceed 500 GB, but it's not like you really need to move it around or anything - once it's on your HDD, that's where it's staying.

So other than the initial transfer of data onto your computer, hard drive speeds don't make a big difference in video editing. Processing power is much more important if you want to get work done efficiently.

 

Video editing you do need processing power, but due to size of files (and since most people don't have that big of a hard drive on their notebook) you have to transfer files to say a large external drive or another source.

 

Another SSD Fan... Don't u get it? For normal ppl like us a 7K500 can be a overkill but an SSD is an super overkill... and not to mention costs a lot... i might as well have a cheaper drive like a 7K500 which does well enough and is cheaper... and not to mention is double the capacity of a 256GB SSD which costs maybe 6-8 times more...

 

With that use, I'd be buying a HDD also! Maybe in another year SSDs will be far cheaper.