The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Intel 320 SSD vs 7200 RPM HDD

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Cloudfire, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Intel booting up 320 SSD on one laptop and Momentus Seagate 500GB 7200 RPM on the other. Same setup. Who will win? Was a bit shocked by how much. Fishy?

    <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6WhWwm2OL-E?fs=1&amp;hl=nb_NO"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6WhWwm2OL-E?fs=1&amp;hl=nb_NO" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='640' height="510"></embed></object>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2015
    Cloudfire, Mar 31, 2011
    #1
  2. Harleyquin07

    Harleyquin07 エミヤ

    Reputations:
    603
    Messages:
    3,376
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    116
    The latter being the hybrid drive XT? I suppose if the Seagate's XT flash was already prepped for fast boot up, the Intel 320 losing to it in benchmarks should be understandable.
     
    Harleyquin07, Mar 31, 2011
    #2
  3. Abula

    Abula Puro Chapin

    Reputations:
    1,115
    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    106
    There were 2 videos, here is the 2nd,

    <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QylIinkHPtk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QylIinkHPtk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='480' height="390"></embed></object>

    I dont think the difference is that big, pure marketing.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2015
    Abula, Mar 31, 2011
    #3
  4. Peon

    Peon Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    406
    Messages:
    2,007
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    81
    It's not the Momentus XT, it's the old fashioned 7200.4. IIRC it's the drive that the XT is based off of.

    Overall, the results for the 320 meet expectations and the second test is believable, but in the first test I'm willing to bet that the Windows 7 install was loaded with crap.
     
    Peon, Mar 31, 2011
    #4
  5. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Funny, at the end of the video they say it's an WD500BEVT 300GB.

    First of all that drive doesn't exist. Second, it's probably a 5400rpm drive.
     
    Phil, Mar 31, 2011
    #5
  6. Peon

    Peon Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    406
    Messages:
    2,007
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I totally missed that at the end of the 2nd video. I just assumed it was the same drive.

    Sneaky Intel :mad:
     
    Peon, Apr 1, 2011
    #6
  7. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    difference is about that big in my cases. esp. the second video shows the experience i had at work before, and after. and it's not sneaky, as at work, no one will pay for 7200rpm drives for the thousands of laptops in use. then again, no one would pay for the ssds, too :(
     
    davepermen, Apr 1, 2011
    #7
  8. Phil

    Phil Retired

    Reputations:
    4,415
    Messages:
    17,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    455
    Stating that it's a 7200rpm drive while it's really a 5400rpm is totally sneaky if you ask me.
     
    Phil, Apr 1, 2011
    #8
  9. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    have they stated that in the second video? haven't seen that (but i just got up, so my eyes are not that .. okay the brain, it's the brain that isn't working yet. coffeine, where are ya!?!)
     
    davepermen, Apr 1, 2011
    #9
  10. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    5,398
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    2,717
    Trophy Points:
    631
    How to make a 7200 RPM drive behave like a 1999 4200 RPM drive:

    Download this file and let it run for a few hours:

    See:
    http://ftp.raxco.com/pub/download/pd11/tools/scramble.zip

    Try to run anything after letting it run and see how 'bad' fragmentation is for your system. Or, simply do a reboot to see crazy 5+ minute boot up times.

    Or, to see how efficient a modern HDD can be; download a trial of PerfectDisk 11 Professional and let it run online and offline (boot time defrag) a couple of times and see how close it is to an SSD then. (Especially when combined with effective partitioning).

    The SSD will still be faster, no doubt - but nowhere like the differences shown in the above videos.
     
    tilleroftheearth, Apr 1, 2011
    #10
  11. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    depends. a work system has to start up tons of background tasks that really slow down everything. the impact to an ssd is massive, there. and yes, this is compared to a defragged harddrive.
     
    davepermen, Apr 1, 2011
    #11
  12. yameritzu

    yameritzu Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    Does anyone with an SSD and a standard HDD want to run a timed start-up test of their own and report the results?
     
    yameritzu, Apr 1, 2011
    #12
  13. kent1146

    kent1146 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,354
    Messages:
    4,449
    Likes Received:
    476
    Trophy Points:
    151
    I have a link to a video in my signature.
    SSD vs HDD Direct Comparison - Identical Drive Images

    Intel X25-M 80GB vs Hitachi 7K320 7200rpm HDD
    Dell XPS M1330 laptop (Core2Duo CPU @ 2.4Ghz, 4GB RAM)

    (Nearly) identical hard drive images... cloned from SSD --> HDD. The only difference between the drive images is that the Hitachi 7K320 drive was booted one time prior to this test to allow Windows to detect hardware / install drivers, and defrag the drive.

    During the video, I show the Startup items that I'm loading on bootup, so that the viewer has an idea how (un)cluttered the machine boot process is.

    Note that there is a difference between boot time to desktop (i.e. the desktop appears), and boot time to usable desktop (i.e. the desktop appears and finishes loading enough startup applications, so that the machine is responsive enough to use).
     
    kent1146, Apr 1, 2011
    #13
  14. Cloudfire

    Cloudfire (Really odd person)

    Reputations:
    7,279
    Messages:
    10,304
    Likes Received:
    2,878
    Trophy Points:
    581
    I know SSDs are much faster but 1 minutes and 20 seconds on a single bootup?
    I bet they had something running in the background or the HDD heavily fragmented.
     
    Cloudfire, Apr 1, 2011
    #14
  15. jclausius

    jclausius Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    6,160
    Messages:
    3,265
    Likes Received:
    2,573
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Kent,

    That was my thought too. What was fragmentation like on the Hitachi?
     
    jclausius, Apr 1, 2011
    #15