Hitachi HTS725050A9A364 aka 7K500 Benchmarks

Just Installed my Hitachi 500GB 7K500 7200 RPM HD, replacing my Scorpio Blue 500GB HD which replaced the Seagate 7200.4's I tried (four of them) as a possible replacement to my Hitachi 7K200 which replaced the 'stock' Toshiba HD that came with my VAIO. :wub:

Here are some benchmarks for comparison:

Scorpio Blue=Scorpio
Hitachi 7K500=7K500
Seagate 7200.4=7200.4
Toshiba MK3252GSX=Tosh

To read about a comparison of real world performance between the original Toshiba HD and the Hitachi 7K500...

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5609040#post5609040


Benchmarks using HD Tune Pro 3.5

Read Transfer rates in MB/s - Access time in ms:
...................Scorpio..........7K500............7200.4.........Tosh
Min:................36.9.............50.3..............44.5...........27.4
Max:...............81.0............107.1..............98.0...........62.7
Avg:...............60.5.............84.2..............78.9...........49.7
Access time:....22.4.............18.7..............16.2...........18.6
Burst rate: ....106.1............139.2..............72.2...........80.6

Random Access Read IOPS:
...................Scorpio..........7K500............7200.4.........Tosh
512 bytes:.......44................54.................57...............54
4KB:...............44.................53................59................52
64KB:..............44................51.................57...............50
1MB:...............24................32.................32...............22
Random:..........32................40.................40...............31

Random Access Read Avg access time (ms):
...................Scorpio..........7K500............7200.4.........Tosh
512 bytes:.......22................18..................17..............18
4KB:...............22.................18.................16...............18
64KB:..............22................19..................17..............19
1MB:...............40................31..................30..............45
Random:..........31................24..................24..............32

Random Access Read Avg speed (MB/s):
...................Scorpio..........7K500............7200.4.........Tosh
512 bytes:......0.022............0.026.............0.028.........0.027
4KB:..............0.173............0.208..............0.234........0.207
64KB:.............2.758............3.241.............3.564.........3.165
1MB:............24.767............32.105...........32.512.......22.140
Random:.......16.047............20.152...........20.362.......15.495



You may look at those benchmarks above and wonder why I would replace the Seagate with a Scorpio Blue? The simple answer? Benchmarks lie.

Even if we ignore the fact that it took Vista x64 90+ minutes to install on the Seagate (on only one of four Seagates I tried), lets look at how it ran once it was installed (for comparison, the Scorpio took about 20 minutes to install Windows).

Here are some typical comparisons between the Scorpio and the Seagate. Note that these were on Vista x64 and since then I have moved on to Win 7 x64. I'd also like to mention that possibly, (but I'm not convinced myself) using Win 7 or even XP with a Seagate 7200.4 may dramatically improve the following numbers - but I'm not willing to invest the time in testing that configuration anytime soon.

Re-Boot times:

Scorpio 110 seconds, Seagate 100 seconds.

Open programs:

......................Scorpio.........Seagate
PS CS4:.............10.................15
Safari:................3...................4
Excel:.................4...................6
Word:.................4...................7

Install Roxio Creator 2009 (programs and data):

ScorpioB: 11:24 min:sec
Seagate: 12:25 min:sec

Did I return the 4 drives just because of the above? No. What made me return them was two were DOA, one would not install Vista at all (clean install) and the one I've included here and tested, would randomly crash with errors (file not found errors) that were always different than the last ones encountered. Simply not a drive I could trust my business to.

In summary, I gave these benchmarks to satisfy those that need them.

I don't. I simply test the drive under real conditions (a subset of which was presented above comparing the Scorpio to the Seagate) and choose to use the drive with the real and tangible improvements to my computing experience.


But, as this is my benchmark thread...

For you benchmark guys/gals here is some addition benchmarks I ran on completely identical clean installs on two identical VAIO's (one had 8GB the other the stock 4GB of RAM).


The following four benchmarks are for the stock TOSHIBA MK3252GSX HD measured with CrystalDiskMark 3.0 beta 1.

T= the # of times run (defaults to 5, most tested at 9)

The first run is the first (beginning of drive) 32GB partition tested.

The second run is the last (end of drive) 64GB partition tested.

The third run is the O/S (2nd) 100GB partition tested.

The fourth run is the O/S (2nd) 100GB partition tested with CDM b1 defaults.

---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 51.560 MB/s
Sequential Write : 56.225 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 23.235 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 24.221 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.371 MB/s [ 90.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.768 MB/s [ 187.5 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.767 MB/s [ 187.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.777 MB/s [ 189.6 IOPS]

Test : 2000 MB [T: Used 13.2% (4.2/32.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:05:54
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Toshiba T = 9x, 2000GB on first partition of HD


---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 43.502 MB/s
Sequential Write : 41.980 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 20.978 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 24.731 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.398 MB/s [ 97.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.794 MB/s [ 193.8 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.804 MB/s [ 196.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.801 MB/s [ 195.6 IOPS]

Test : 2000 MB [E: Used 40.8% (26.1/64.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:28:54
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Toshiba T= 9x, 2000GB on last partition of HD.


---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 60.405 MB/s
Sequential Write : 56.698 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 22.995 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 26.754 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.377 MB/s [ 91.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.816 MB/s [ 199.1 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.808 MB/s [ 197.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.790 MB/s [ 192.9 IOPS]

Test : 2000 MB [C: Used 41.9% (41.9/100.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:50:26
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Toshiba T= 9x, 2000MB on C: (2nd) partition of HD.


---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 60.643 MB/s
Sequential Write : 55.235 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 23.473 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 26.132 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.389 MB/s [ 95.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.823 MB/s [ 201.0 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.852 MB/s [ 208.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.837 MB/s [ 204.5 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 41.9% (41.9/100.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:58:40
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Toshiba T= 5x, 1000MB on C: (2nd) partition of HD.



The following four benchmarks are for the stock Hitachi 7K500 measured with CrystalDiskMark 3.0 beta 1.

T= the # of times run (defaults to 5, most tested at 9)

The first run is the first (beginning of drive) 64GB partition tested.

The second run is the last (end of drive) 64GB partition tested.

The third run is the O/S (2nd) 100GB partition tested.

The fourth run is the O/S (2nd) 100GB partition tested with CDM b1 defaults.

---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 111.149 MB/s
Sequential Write : 109.449 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 43.308 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 50.039 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.550 MB/s [ 134.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.815 MB/s [ 198.9 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.083 MB/s [ 264.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.847 MB/s [ 206.9 IOPS]

Test : 2000 MB [T: Used 1.2% (0.7/64.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:00:23
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Hitachi 7K500 T= x9, 2000MB test on 1st partition of HD.


---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 61.754 MB/s
Sequential Write : 61.166 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 31.384 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 33.727 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.502 MB/s [ 122.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.756 MB/s [ 184.5 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.016 MB/s [ 248.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.782 MB/s [ 190.9 IOPS]

Test : 2000 MB [E: Used 40.7% (26.0/64.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:19:20
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Hitachi 7K500 T= x9, 2000MB test on last partition of HD.


---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 103.502 MB/s
Sequential Write : 102.948 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 39.145 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 45.656 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.499 MB/s [ 121.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.752 MB/s [ 183.6 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.969 MB/s [ 236.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.773 MB/s [ 188.8 IOPS]

Test : 2000 MB [C: Used 42.8% (42.8/100.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:52:01
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Hitachi 7K500 T= x9, 2000MB test on C: (2nd) partition of HD


---------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0 x64 Beta1 (C) 2007-2009 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read : 102.923 MB/s
Sequential Write : 102.500 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 38.526 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 45.812 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.493 MB/s [ 120.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.761 MB/s [ 185.9 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.003 MB/s [ 244.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.811 MB/s [ 197.9 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: Used 42.8% (42.8/100.0 GB)]
Date : 2009/12/08 14:26:12
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition [6.1 Build 7600] (x64)

Above is Hitachi 7K500 T = x5, 1000MB test on C: (2nd) partition of HD.



So, that's the benchmarks. Hope they help.

 

bravo, good sir.

 

+ Rep, good sir. I want a 7K500 now.

 

Hey guys! Thanks!

Just wanted to let you know I've added the link to the 'real world' comparison at the top of my post.

CZX58_Shadow, I regret not buying two!

 

I have both drives. They seem about the same to me.

 

ZaZ, which is 'both' drives? I am showing 4 here?

 

7k500 and the 7200.4.

 

Which O/S do you run?

 

Great post! +Rep

Sadly still nowhere available here...

 

For me Hitachi is the Mercedes of the HDDs. Very high performance and reliable drives. Have a 2.5" 5400 RPM 250 GB, and a 2.5" 7200 RPM 500 GB. Had 3 Seagates in my life and 2 of them failed (1 desktop and one 2.5" - bad sectors from the very first day).

 

I ran Vista and XP on the Hitachi. I ran XP, Vista, W7 and various Linux distros on the Seagate. They all seemed about the same to me. I'm not taking issue with your numbers. The Hitachi did seem to boot a little faster, but not hugely so. A couple slower opening apps like Photoshop and iTunes did seem a tick or two quicker, but in my experience they're both about the same in real world usage. Perhaps I just don't notice unless it's markedly faster or slower.

 

too technical. wuts da layman's conclusion and your honesty unbiased rekkomendasion?

 

ZaZ, thanks for the feedback.

I know a lot of people that see my 'tuned' systems and go wow!, but I also see just as many, (if not more, to be totally truthful), that see them and say; yeah, so? lol

Each of us has different thresholds and like I've mentioned before, I know a Seagate 7200.4 in a MacBook Pro that just zooms, so I know the variability of the consumer products we're 'playing' with.

BTW, for the Hitachi, you got the new 2.5" 7K500 7200 RPM 500GB model, right? Just checking, thanks.

 

BaldwinHillsTrojan,

yes, that's why I don't love benchmarks! lol


Did you see this link/post at the top of my first post in this thread?
See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5609040#post5609040


To quote myself from this thread:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5608622#post5608622

"So, how is the new 7K500? Its a keeper. "

And another quote from this thread:
See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5609787#post5609787

"If you noticed that after PD10 the HD's are performing very similarly, you may wonder if the Hitachi was worth the trouble to upgrade?

Let me copy a part of the 'real world' thread (link at top) to let you know just how fast the Hitachi is in 'real life':

This is for Phil (mod):

43GB File folder of pictures, music, program files, various install files, ISO's, documents, etc. copied from one partition to another:
Tosh: 63 minutes; 7K500: 44 minutes. Over 40% improvement."


BaldwinHillsTrojan,

I guess I can't summarize it any better or clearer than I already have above.

BTW, PD10 in the quote above is PerfectDisk 10.

 

that's great to know. thanks for the summary.

 

Yes it is the 500GB 7k500. I bought it cause it was such a great deal, but after having had it for a bit, I decided its marginal value wasn't that much over what I had. I traded for a 640GB WD that's going in the UltraBay for extra storage. I don't need speed for storage.

 

Another Seagate failure.. sigh... anyways, i got the stock toshiba and looks like i need to buy a 7K500... problem is its not available in UK so whats the next best one?

 

how much was the hitachi drive?

 

Well, I always keep my original drives stock - after I make a recovery DVD and a Drivers/Software DVD, I remove it and put in the current 'best' I have available. Last year, that was the Hitachi 7K200, but I tried the Seagate 7200.4's but as they didn't offer confidence/stability and a performance increase I used the WD Scorpio Blue 500GB BEVT until this weekend.

Unbelievably, the Scorpio offered the much needed space as expected over the 7K200 - but it also matched it for 'feel' too. I didn't give up too much 'snappiness' to get two and a half times the capacity.

Note I didn't compare the original Toshiba to the Scorpio Blue critically yet, (I may still do so, just for curiosities sake) so getting the Scorpio Blue may be a side-ways upgrade for you - I just don't know right now.

If you want to keep your original drive stock (i.e. you have not yet installed Win 7 on it), then the Scorpio would make good sense then. The Toshiba could serve as your backup/warranty HD and the Scorpio would give you an increase in capacity and in higher sequential transfer rates that you should 'feel' compared to the stock Toshiba drive (assuming that the Toshiba you're referring to is the same as the one I have benchmarked here).

I got it for the $79.99 price including free shipping.

 

ZaZ, thank again for the additional info.

That is how people should make decisions - it doesn't matter what everyone else is saying - its how it performs for you that makes or breaks it.

When I started using the Scorpio Blue (being used to the 7K200), I wanted to cry at the sometimes obvious speed/performance differences in specific scenarios - but all I had to do to be 'happy' with my choice was put my first 20GB photo shoot on it and be astounded that by the time I got back to my studio (a couple of days later), I had to backup over 200GB of psd and tiff creations I had made while on the road. No matter how fast the 7K200 was - it simply wouldn't allow me to do that!

 

Yes my drive is the same one.. 3 programs have verified that. So what's the next best one i can get? I don't want seagate ones.. more likely to fail.

 

I have a 7K500 myself as well.. and I don't seem to feel much of an improvement over my 7200.3? 250Gb Seagate.. but maybe that's just me.

Either way, I got it while the deal at Newegg was up so I don't regret it a single bit. The benchmarks are pretty impressive for this drive though.

 

I'm not doubting that the 7200.4 and even the 7200.3 Seagates 'feel' the same, but have you guys/gals tried the copy 43GB from one partition to another test? This will weed out the old from the new, I think.

See the first post for the link - it is the 'real world' test link.

 

I just got the Hitachi 7200 500GB today and am upgrading from a 7200.4 in my Asus U81a. I am alot more confident of this new drive too, alot quieter than the 7200.4. With the 7200.4 alone I had 54 seconds Win7 boot to desktop, including bios post from power on. This went down to 45 seconds with an 8GB ReadyBoost SDHC class 10 Extreme III card. I used Win7 backup to create the new drive. No special partitions etc, just stright up single partition. It needs to age a bit for DP10 to get boot files just right but I am now down to 39 seconds from power up to desktop.

Still not SSD performance but admirable for HDD tech. Now HDTune 2.55 only shows about a 6% improvement on read over the 7200.4

max transfer now 109.9 and was 102.5 MBS
Min transfer now 53.5 and was 50.4 MBS
Average Access now 16.5 ms and was 17.5 ms

Before the RB would fill at about 6 MBS max while the HDD was under 100% load now I regularly see 9+ MBS at those same load. It seems both write speeds and latencies have a great improvement over the old 7200.4

So real world I am seeing a huge difference. Again it is no where near a SSD but again for HDD tech it seem the best you can get. Now the 160 Black may be slightly faster but I doubt all that much faster.

I should also note with Battery Bar in Battery saver mode I used to be at about 7,750 Mwh now I am about 7,250 Mwh...........

 

TANWare,

Thanks for the additional info. Do you have a link to that Toshiba drive?

Just want to point out that Battery Bar Pro is on my 'don't ever install that on my computers' list! Not only did it reduce my battery run time, but I think it even 'damaged' my VAIO's battery for the short time I demoed it.

Battery Bar Pro? Just say no.

 

Ooops my bad, I meant Hitachi travelstar, wow late and I blew that one. edited the post.........

Also I don't have pro just the freeware. I am thinking of dumping it though in favor of just HWMonitor as you can get battery drain there when you need it.......

 

TANWare,

no prob! lol...

Just wanted to mention to you that if you haven't tried CPUID then you should - if you want a longer battery life and a cooler running notebook.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5681723&postcount=6


Cheers!

 

I DL'd CrystalCPUID and did the F4 and saw SuperLFM working. The problem is my battery usage at the time went up with CrystalCPUID went up by about 500 Mwh and I even saw Win7's available battery time drop. I think the Asus U81a already properly uses SLFM is the reason for this.

 

Another update, or tweak, I went to msconfig and under boot tab and advanced button changed over to 2 cores from 1. This now brings the boot down to 33-34 seconds from power up to desktop..........

Edit; after talking to a few people for some reason my system was set as 1 core. I had never enabled this but letting then default of no cores be selected it boots inn the 33-34 second range on its own...........

 

As the author of BatteryBar, I can say that there is no way that the application could damage your battery or lessen the lifespan.

BatteryBar uses the standard Windows APIs to read information about your battery. It's the same APIs that the built-in Windows battery meter uses.

The reason I created BatteryBar was because the Windows battery meter is very inaccurate. It determines time remaining by dividing the capacity by the current discharge rate. Since the discharge rate is constantly fluctuating, so is the Windows time remaining amount. It also assumes a linear discharge when most batteries discharge non-linearly (longer closer to 100%, faster closer to 0%).

For batteries that don't report the discharge rate, Windows won't even show a time remaining.

BatteryBar keeps historial usage data of how long your battery actually lasts and generates a time remaining based on that actual usage, independent of the current discharge rate, though it does adjust the time remaining if your current usage is higher or lower than normal.

 

Hi,
You are correct somewhat about discharge. With Lithium Tech at 0.2c disharge or less the first 10% holds a higher voltage and will require less amps to create the watts. This especially becomes true at the place where the batteries are rated at 0.1c or 10 hour batterfy life. At the first 1-2% the voltage is extreme highest. voltage will then will level off quite a bit to the last 5-10% then it drops off rapidly. So it is not a true exponential curve.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond! I am honored that the author of the software is responding, so I hope to give good and accurate info for you to work out whatever the problem may be (if it is in fact within your software).

I installed the (demo) program because I noted that Phil (mod) was using it too. I immediately saw a 10 to 20 minute decrease in battery run time with the program installed. This is not a scientific test - this is normal usage until the notebook (VAIO) goes into hibernate mode.

I continued to use it and did not notice the time last any longer (or, more technically 'closer') to what it was previously to using the program. Before it expired though, I noticed that it would not charge the battery to 100% (whether this is because of the program or not, I have no idea, but I was using this notebook for over a year with no issues like this - in Vista or Win 7 - both 64 bit).

It didn't 'damage' it much - about 2 or 3%, but when I unistalled the demo, the battery charged up properly again. However, with HWmonitor, I can see that the 'damage' is still there.

I don't expect anything for the damage - I take full responsibility for the software I download and install on my computers - but just want to let you know exactly what my experience with the software was.

It is interesting to note also, that once uninstalled, the battery run time before the computer goes to hibernate is within a couple of minutes of what it was before I installed the Battery Bar Pro demo.

Hope this helps you improve your software. I really liked the UI and the information I could obtain from it, but whether the decrease in the batteries capacity was due to your software or not I have no way to tell.

The only thing I can state for a fact is that the battery run times were about 83% of what my VAIO achieves without it (100 min w/BBP, 120 without).

Cheers!

 

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm honestly perplexed. BatteryBar passively reads the battery's status approximately every 5 seconds. Perhaps I could add an option to allow people to change the frequency of battery updates.

 

NiteShdw,

You're welcome.

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but with a zillion different possible configurations possible in the Windows world, anything is possible in software interactions.

Cheers!

 

Tiller, these scores look a lot better than what you posted before:


Any chance you could re run the IOPS benchmarks with HDTP 4.0?

 

Phil,

Sorry, not ignoring your PM to me, but I just had time to do this for you.

I had to use 4.01 as I don't have the 4.00 version.

Also, this had me stumped at first - I was getting the same scores as with version 3.50, but then I noticed the 'Short Stroke' feature and my scores are at least comparable now. I had over 77 processes running with this benchmark going (this is just sitting idle) fyi.

I almost protested that there was no way a notebook HD would approach a VRaptor in access times (10 ms!), but with short stroking, we can certainly get close!

This short stroking feature in v4 of HD Tune will really help me tune into the best partition sizes when I'm setting up my next mechanical HD.

Cheers!

 

Thanks for that. Do you mean short stroking like this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,2157-2.html ?

PS I noticed the 250GB will be less than 50 euros. I might pick one up when it's available.

 

No, I mean checking the box for Short Stroking the tested part to 40GB in HD Tune 4.0, although, I already have set up my 7K500 'short stroked' too.

 

Ok well that's not seem like a relevant way of comparing.

 

Like I said a long time ago - benchmarks lie.

 

When using Disk Perfect 10 you keep the files in the outer tracks. Agreed though there is no reason to keep long time storage there. So two partitions are optimal a good size working partiton for all of C:\ and D:\ for data archives. You could even argue for a page file partiton as the first or second partiton and still the third then as data.

This drive however just rocks, so for my purposes the default full partiton works well. I have 438GB of 465GB free so all is well...........

 

Yes, PD10 does place the files towards the outer tracks, however, when you're using the system on an unpartitioned HD, there are times when the full disk is used (and therefore the full access time penalty felt) and still gets the disk feeling slower than it can feel with a smaller partition.

Even HD Tune 4.01 bears this out with the 'Short Stroke' option it offers; a notebook HD with 10ms or less access times... pretty good for the first 40GB.

 

It took a few times but I reduced the c:\ drive to 64GB. It now boots to first desktop in 32 seconds from 34 seconds before............

 

TANWare,

it seems like you have a very lean and clean Windows install - 32 seconds would be hard for an SSD to beat. By short stroking, you'll notice it more when you have a lot of programs installed and/or services running at logon.

But, 2 seconds is still a 6% improvement - not too bad for a 'free' tweak.

 

I run a fairly tight system. 38.7GB free of 63.9GB, this is with a 4GB page file. I am not a gamer so 64GB for the main partition works fine for me. I moved the downloads folder to the new 400GB partition that was leftover.

I have also noticed that when the RB drive is filling I used to see about 11 mbs peak being read from c:\ now I watch it read at about 13 mbs peak. So without a doubt it is faster real world drive performance. I also belive it is much more than just the 6% as indicated from the boot times but again it is a single component and to get 6% total increase the one component usually requires 12-18% increase.

Edit; Pics HDD & MMC (ReadyBoost)

 

Out of curiosity did any of you guys end up with the BDE version of the drive? Mine is plane Jane without BDE after checking against the Hitachi literature but I had copied the retailers description and sent an email to Hitachi and they said it was BDE. Not sure who is at fault but I guess that is why it was so cheap.

The drive rocks.

 

The end of the serial number for BDE should be 365...

 

I just DL'd the Hitachi FeatureTool but it doesn't work for my chipset.......

 

TANWare,

try 'speccy' by the makers of ccleaner. It may give you the serial number for you.

Good luck.

 

I'm good, I was telling him per the documents BDE drives ends with 365, mine is standard 364. So a BDE model would be HTS725050A9A365 not HTS725050A9A364.

I want FeatureTool just to verify Sata II and be sure the drive is set to maximum performance by default not battery savings..........

Edit; add a pic..........