Main HDD Thread - (Discussion, Benchmarks, Brands, News and Advice)

*** This thread is the main Hard Disk Drive thread. All questions related to choosing HDDs can be asked here ***

Hi all,

I just want the fastest notebook HDD out there, any chance it's the WD3200BEKT?

Anything from 160gb+ is good.

I have attached my HD tune results for my current drive (yes, very slow).
Would I notice a difference if I upgrade?

 

Hitachi 7k500

 

Not always, from what I understand. For different operations they perform differently, sometimes with the 7K500 being faster and sometimes with the WD3200BEKT being faster, don't quote me on that though. I'm pretty sure the 7K500 is the fastest 2.5" 500GB drive though. I would think that Tilleroftheearth could help with this, he seems like a real knowledgeable person on the subject of drives.

 

That is very hard to find.

Would it make much of a difference if I got the WD3200BEKT?
Or is it worth finding the 7k500?

 

It's not all that hard to find. If you use Staticice.com, put in the search box the following: Hitachi 2.5" 500GB 7200RPM. I find that www.staticice.com is a great search engine to use when you want to find computer parts in Australia. It will list what websites it is available at from the cheapest to the most expensive. You will probably find the WD3200BEKT on there as well.

This topic makes me want to upgrade my Fujitsu as well, it sounds like a coffee grinder and steroids ...

I'd hate to think of how slow it is. Surprisingly, it boots Windows 7 in less than 40 seconds...

 

Ok, thanks. I guess I'll get this then:
http://www.itsdirect.com.au/com_pro...ategory_id=30&Product_ID=6980&sub_category=92


EDIT: 2.5" is for notebooks right?

 

why not get the 500GB one??
http://www.itsdirect.com.au/com_pro...2_5_quot__Laptop_Hard_Drive__SATA,_8mb_Cache_

edit: oh it's status is pre-order

 

seriosly , i would wait for the 500Gb one... its supposed to be faster than the 250GB one and if u need more space, it would be better...

 

Hi there, can you tell me how did you manage to get the 40 seconds boot time?

That's just half of my boot time

 

moral hazard, I don't have time to respond fully right now, but can you tell me this:

What makes a drive fast to you? Response time ('snappiness') or actual heavy lifting (creating/moving/copying/transfering of data)?

Of course we want both, but if one or the other is more important, I'll be able to help you better if I know (sometime later today, hopefully).

 

I really don't know...

I have pretty much no services running though, and I only have a few programs and utilities installed. The only things that run at start up is the OS itself, and my drivers. The only program in my msconfig list is the Synaptics driver, and the OS.

BTW, forgot to mention that it's a 5400RPM.

 

Yep, 2.5" for notebooks, and 3.5" for desktops. There are some rare notebooks that don't use 2.5", some of the smaller ones would use 1.8", but yours is 2.5".

 

If you have an laptop capable of having an tall drive retrofitted(For instance an ASUS G50 or 51) you also have the option of an WD VelociRaptor (Did you guy know that it is an 2.5inch drive?)

 

Doesn't the Velociraptor require more power than a notebook can provide?

 

Response time is a lot more important.
It seems you have a lot of interesting threads about this, I'm going to go and read them

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure

 

agreed on Hitachi 7k500

 

I sure hope so. I just ordered two of those puppies (to use in my video editing setup) based on his--and others--suggestion.

For the record, I have yet to read anything negative about those drives.

 

You know..I don't really know,the WD320BEJT Asks for 500mA max, Raptor:675mA,How much do you guys think is the max?

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure the Velociraptor needs an external power connector, and it also has it's own heatsink, which is why it is a 3.5" drive. The heat generated by that puppy would be too much for a notebook.

 

lol the velociraptor will melt the notebook.

They had to put it in a 2.5" form wrapped in a heatsink.

go with the hitachi

 

and what is the answer for each one?
who wins response time and who wins file transfer speed??

1 thing I know 7k500 access time is still defeated by WD3200BEKT, now I don't know who's faster in file transfer speed.
None has concrete comparison data so far

 

The 7k500 is an excellent drive, but if size isn't a factor, I would recommend the WD1600BJKT. It's like the 3200BEKT except the 1600 has only one platter, so it has a slight advantage. I have that drive in my computer, and it's faster than any other HDD I've tested on friends' laptops.

If course, the 1600 is only 160GB, so if that's too small for you, I'd go with the 7k500.

 

You meant WD1600BEKT ..

Good news, Tomshardware chart has been updated .. including the new 7K500

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-2.5-mobile-hard-drive-charts/benchmarks,53.html

 

Well, the BEKT doesn't have the free-fall sensor.
The BEVT does. I personally have the BEVT. I doubt it makes a difference on performance.

 

BEVT is the code for 5400 rpm drives.
If you have 160GB 7200 rpm with free-fall sensor, then it's WD1600BJKT

 

Ah, yes, OK. I'm not sure why I thought it was the BEVT. Anyway, thanks, and post corrected.

 

I wrote a little write up on the 250Gb variant here:
Western Digital 250GB Scorpio Black SATA 7200 RPM 2.5IN 16MB Bulk/OEM WD2500BEKT

Please ensure that you buy the 16Mb cache, which ever you decide to buy. The extra cache increases the burst speed of these drives.

 

But do any of these drives show real, tangible differences. I'm talking like 5+ seconds.

 

Depends on what kind of situation we're talking about. As tiller said, it some drives can show a noticeable difference(in the order of more than 5 seconds) on heavy copying/file moving(heavy as in 1Gb+)

 

Yes, the 'best' drives do show tangible differences but this 'best' is not defined by simple measurements like benchmarks, single vs. double platter nor by platter density either. It is a sum total combination of all the choices that the manufacturers make when they introduce new tech.

I haven't seen a direct comparison of a WD BEKT and a 7K500 on the same system with the same tests being done (except for the Toms comparison), but I have seen enough benchmark claims not matching real life that unless tested in my system with my exact (previous) setup and workflow, I don't deem a drive 'better' unless I can see for myself.

A case in point is the Seagate 7200.4 500GB drives (4 I tried) I tested a year ago. Although their raw power easily outpaced my 7K200, the feel and 'snappiness' of the drive was horrible - not to mention Vista took 90+ minutes to install on the 7200.4. So much so that when I finally tried the 5400 RPM Scorpio Blue, it was immediately apparent that overall, it was faster than the Seagate (about 15 minute install time for Vista on the Scorpio Blue). Benchmarks, would have you believe otherwise for these two drives.

You may want to see the following post for more 'differences'; although it is only comparing the 7K500 to a Toshiba (shipped with my VAIO) HD.

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

 

moral hazard, you had to pick the 'hard' one, huh?

By all accounts if you don't want, or have the time, to test both models in your specific setup then the Scorpio Black is the 'safe' way to go to have the fastest responding HD currently available, but note that this will not guarantee the fastest overall current user experience - just the fastest responding (the 'work', depending what the 'work' is, will still probably take longer to do with the Scorpio Black).

Things to consider:

First, the lower capacity (less dense data platters) of the 160GB 'Black model will always 'feel' faster than the higher density platter models. They simply have a bigger 'track' to lock onto and less error correction (and minute head alignment to do) after they locate the track that was requested. This 'snappiness' is addictive! But don't ignore the many benefits of the newer/better drives. Especially if properly setup.

Although I have stated multiple times that benchmarks are not the end all and be all of a drives performance, when run through the same tests/platform as Tom's does they do indicate the relative performance between models. Especially when those benchmarks reflect real life performance (I can vouch that the 7K500 does, in my situation at least).

While the new 7K500 shows up the Scorpio Black in many benchmarks, it does not show the best scores in the File Server, Web Server, Database and Workstation benchmarks. If these are important indicators for your uses, decide accordingly. (Up to 40% slower in the File Server benchmark). But I don't know of anyone who uses a notebook in any one specific scenario like those benchmarks try to pinpoint.

What does indicate to me that the 7K500 will be better/faster overall is the Mobile Performance score (10.7% better than the 'Black), the PCMark Vantage score (19.8% better than the 'Black) and the streaming writes and streaming reads (33.7% and 29% better, respectively).

Taken from Tom's Hardware:
(The rightmost results are for a Scorpio Blue 5400 RPM 500GB model)
See:
Tom's Hardware - Benchmark IOMeter 2006.07.27


What we do with this information will decide if the Scorpio Black or the 7K500 will be faster or slower for us. If we just drop the drive (unpartitioned) into our notebook and install our O/S then I would agree that the 'Black should feel faster. If however we intelligently partition our drive, then, although the Scorpio Black will benefit also with smaller partitions, it effectively is limited to how big we need it to fit our O/S, programs and swap/page/temp files too - so the bigger capacity Hitachi should still be 'better', overall - all things taken into account.

This benchmark shows a Scorpio Black in a working system:


Scorpio Black WD3200BJKT w/ free-fall sensor

Taken from here:
See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4776608&postcount=38

I have attached my HD Tune results too below.


First thing we notice is that the access time is almost 2 ms faster on the 'Black. Everything after that goes downhill pretty fast.

The Average read transfer rate on the 7K500 is the 'Black's maximum and the burst rate is almost 3 times faster on the Hitachi.

All we need to do to effectively beat the Scorpio Black is to simply use less available HD space. Yes; short stroke it.

If 160GB really is enough for you; then what I would do is get a Hitachi 7K500 and simply use 32% of it's capacity. This is effectively limiting the read/write heads to the first third of the platters, greatly increasing the 'response' of the drive. The other benefits are also intriguing: the minimum reads will be in the high 90MB/s range, the writes (although I have no benchmark data myself for writes) will be similarly high (not in absolute numbers, but compared to how the drive writes at the 'end' of the platters). In addition, you get a much cooler running, quieter and more power efficient model.

Partitioned:

You'll get an almost 350% minimum throughput increase - (almost 1/2 of an SSD's maximum, but without the equally fast access times)!

Almost 30% more peak throughput (with more chances of it actually being used).

An Average that should be more than 50% faster than the 'Black.

And, don't quote me, but when I was playing with the 'buggy' HD Tune 4.01 utility which lets you choose a 'short stroke' value to test, an approximately 12-14 ms access time for that sized partition (again, going only from memory, don't quote these numbers! ).


Can you see how this can get complicated, real fast?

For myself, I always partition because it does make a performance difference, but I also (usually) buy the newest available HD too to get the higher transfer rates, the better acoustics and the lowest power requirements for an overall better notebook HD 'experience'.

We have to take into account not only the initial response the HD will give us, but also the sustained work it can do to say which is faster, or responsive, overall.

Just like a street dragster setup to jump between lights will have 'snap' up to about 80MPH, the 'Black will impress for 'feel' - but so will any low data density platter based at the same RPM. But, when it is presented with an open road and the 'next lights' are in another city - the dragster can be beaten by a grandma driving her Cadillac, which can hit 140MPH or more and she'll still feel 'safe' while doing so.

The fastest responding HD to me is the one which actually finishes the work faster in the end. 'Snappiness' is also something I value highly (and all my systems exhibit), but that can be achieved by simply partitioning the higher density HD's so as to not trade 'snappiness' for actual productivity - and real productivity gains is what the newer tech usually offers - at least from Hitachi, anyway.

So, does initial response still mean the same to you? Or, are you now looking for a more balanced/mature performance envelope from your next drive?

Hope it was worth waiting for this post - more importantly, I hope it allows you to decide which is really the fastest HD available for you right now, considering all your options equally.

Good luck.

 

tilleroftheearth, you took the worst case scenario for scorpio black's hdtune result
now it won't be fair unless you took the worst case too on 7k500 result..
For example here's my result in my machine..

I really wish someone has both drives and just give us the real life test result ,,LOL

 

crayonyes,

lol... sorry, just the first hit I found!

Phil and others have mentioned that my 7K500 'scores' are the worst, so maybe we already have it here.

I too wish someone with both drives would just show up and tell us what's what.

I'm sure it will happen when I've either moved on to the 7K750 TravelStar (fictional, right now), or have finally taken the SSD route and won't care either way.

The minimum, burst rate and the access times are much better in your HD Tune results, but to be honest; we are all testing/comparing with different versions too! What is 'scary' for me about your drive is the 47 C temperature - ouch! That's hot.

Not trying to misrepresent anything here - but even with your benchmark to compare to, I would still be tempted to get the 500GB 7K500 and short stroke it before I bought (and was happy) with the 'Black.

 

I wasn't trying to self-defense.. but I too really wanted to know the real life differences between the drives.

If only I can find a 7K500 in my place, I'm sure have bought that, just for the sake of the extra capacity!

And don't blame the hdd, it's really hott in my place
even though it's true scorpio black is hotter than 7k500, but my drive's temp is the worst case scenario LOL


edit: made me curious whether I can boost up my access time with short-stroke or not .. and here's my first result..
(but I dont know what short-stroke means?? )

 

Maybe not so much.

I'm a little more confused now, I thought there would be just one drive that everyone agreed was the fastest.

Right now I'm leaning towards the 7K500 because I have had a few Hitachi drives and they survived a lot of abuse.

Now my question is, should I get the 160gb or is the 500gb drive worth waiting a bit for?

 

I think you can draw capacity vs price graph.
Then find the point where you get the highest capacity/price

 

Short stroke is simply to use the first/outer (fastest) part of the platters.

In your example, the first 40GB of the drive can be accessed in under 10 ms - not too bad for a 7200 RPM notebook HD, huh?

Also, notice that your Average is very close to your maximum too. So, no matter where you were reading from that part of the disk, it would be very consistent and very high too.

If the 160GB drive is exactly the same as the 500GB version except for less capacity (ie; both 2 platter high density designs), then there is no difference except when you need more capacity, you'll really need to buy a bigger HD with the 160GB version.

If, it is a single platter version of the 500GB (dual platter) design, I would even say it may be slower (one platter would be using 2/3rds of the area while two platters would be using the fastest 1/3rd - for the same platter density/capacity).

The 'worst' would be if it was a lower data density single platter design that offered 160GB total - this should theoretically match any 7200 160GB notebook drive then, but I highly doubt that Hitachi would do this.

So, again, I would still go for the larger capacity HD and use just the smallest, fastest part I can get away with. The extra 'cost' to do this is offset by the fact that as you need more capacity, you can simply 'extend' the partition accordingly - while still having the fastest possible overall experience, for the capacity you need.

 

Thanks tilleroftheearth! now I understand about short-stroke..
and it really is addictive! LOL

here's a shortstroke with the first 160GB of the drive

edit: say, if you have a partition in the back part of the HDD and it's empty, will it be the same as short-stroke?
or you need to un-partitioned it?

 

That is a good explanation, I will get the 500gb.
Thanks +rep

 

Well, as long as the O/S or app you're using is not accessing the 'back part' partition, then it is effectively the same as short stroking.

When the slower partition is being accessed (if you have it set up as a data partition, for example), it will be slower of course - but usually, we only access data very infrequently, compared to the constant accesses that an O/S requires.

Glad to help. Cheers!

 

Well I'm a little confused: "Back part of the partition?" I that a physical part of the disc or just a reference to a slow access process/point? Additionally, how would you configure your HD to avoid that region?

 

Sorry, just trying to use the words/terms crayonyes was using.

To me: the 'back part' is the slower part of the partition (or the inner tracks). The 'front' would be the beginning or outer edges of the platters.

When you partition a drive smaller than the total capacity it offers, it will only use the faster (outer edges) of the drive.

To ensure it doesn't use the slower parts - simply do not partition the extra space - leave it unused.

 

haha ... I also didn't know what to say it so I said 'back part'
but still it means both (like tiller said) physically it's inner side and slower on access.
If you see it from partition manager software, you'll see a rectangle with 'front' and 'back' side.. LOL

 

Hi guys, just installed and tried the HDTunePro 4.01 for few times but I get BSOD after clicking "OK" to run. Any suggestion?

PS: I dl'ed it from their site (trial version)

Thanks!

 

hmm,, try older version?

 

Nope My first time to try HDTune.

Will try to find the older version now.

Thanks!

EDIT: Older version works! Thanks for the tip!

 

Hi guys, just tried the HDTunePro v3.50 and got ff result, any comment/suggestion on my poor result?

 

Your results are fine

 

Oh! Thanks for the confirmation Mod.

I was wondering why crayonyes' test was higher/better than mine
http://forum.notebookreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=44105&d=1264817052

 

Well they arent the same drives so yeah his one might be better.

But also if you had programs and applications running, it can use up HD resources which will affect the result of the test.