Review of the Samsung HM160HC, World's Fastest ATA/IDE Mobile hard drive

How full is your Samsung drive?

 

I bought this drive last week to revive an old Optiplex sx260. Massive improvement from a 20gb 4200rpm drive.

Everything in Ktrons review is as described.

 

actually, it is as full as my last drive(I just copy all the things in the last drive to the new drive),but the speed is different , it's a little strange.

 

If it's more than eighty percent full, it could be influencing speed....

 

well, I tried everything that may affect the hard drive, but there is no improvement,the writing speed is almost the same， about 35m/s. Well ，I give up.,but this drive is really a good one , I am very satisfied with it.Thank u all!

 

Hi Phil, in ur test, writing and reading speed both surpass the 60m/s, what is ur environment while running the ATTO? I defrag the drive , but in vain. Is it related to the virtual memory? I partitioned 3G space of drive to the virtual memory.

 

My C partition is 30GB (D is 199) and a has dressed down install of Windows XP.
CPU is Pentium mobile 1.6GHz. 1GB
During the test I had 25 running processes.
C drive was 50% full.

 

oh, thanks a lot. I am really puzzled. Mine is C 30G(20G empty), D 40G(30G), E40G (10G),F 40G(25G). I don't know whether there is something wrong with my drive. 5555555

 

Try posting the info page of HD Tune, so K-Tron can have a look at it.

 

K-TRON, thanks to you review I decide to upgrade my HD to the Samsung. Two weeks without problems or errors.

The XP starup with 512MB Ram and the the Seagate 40GB takes 4:30 minutes. Adding a 1GB Ram for a total of 1GB + 256MB takes 3:30 minutes. Upgrading the HD with clone Samsung took 2:30 minutes. Last week I decided to make a clean OEM install. No it takes less than 2 minutes.

Samsung 160GB HM160HC


Original HD- Seagate 40GB

 

here is my info page, the hd tune version is Chinese-Simplified.

 

harmoniker, have you tried another version of ATTO, maybe an older one?

I cant see why your drive would be limited. I will run ATTO on my HM160HC and see what it brings up

Your info tab and mine are the same. We even have the same firmware revision LQ100-10

Kane1, I am glad your HM160HC is performing well. Its a great little drive

K-TRON

 

yeah, I do tried another version, V2.43, as if the latest vesion,but the result is the same! I also tried with HD TUNE, in the FILE TEST, the result is also about 35m/s.

Another question: this drive 's seek time looks a little longer , some people say it is that the high density leads to this(single platter 160g), is that right? thanks~~

 

@harmoniker: What chipset do you have in the computer?

Also check in Device Manager > HDD Properties > Policies that it is set to Optimise for Best performance.

John

 

This may also be important.

 

Just ordered from a local dealer for 39EUR that is 54$.
I can't wait for it to be available.
I'll install it on an iBook 1.33ghz (crappy stock 40gig 4200rpm, 20MB/s seq read/write, 11MB/s random read/write) and let you know.
Of course I can't run PCMARK and other stuff but Mac-specific benchmark.
If someone suggests anything other than Xbench, let me know.

 

It's here:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4512/hm160hcfoto.jpg

This is the first boot so I have only this data:
40 gig 2MB 4200rpm: 40.57s boot, 31s desktop loaded
160gig hm160hc: 34.97s boot, 12.04s desktop loaded

Red: stock 40gig, blue, hm160hc.
How to read this data compared to HDTUNE?

 

HIGH PERFORMANCE SSD PATA INTERFACE!
http://www.westerndigital.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=627

Interface Burst Speed 133 MB/s
Sustained Read Speed 85 MB/s
Sustained Write Speed 60 MB/s
Seek Time 250 µs (Typical)

It seems interesting.

 

This is a few months old, but I don't think anyone really answered this problem correctly. I have an Inspiron 6000 with a HM160HC and it works, but there is one trick you need to know.

In this second quote, K-TRON was replying to kyparamedic, who was talking about an XPS notebook. However, this is close to the correct answer for the Inspiron 6000. Specifically:

1. Take the HM160HC and install it in another laptop or in an external 2.5" USB case used with another computer.
2. Partition it, with no one partition greater than 137 GB.
3. Install the HM160HC in the Inspiron 6000. You will have use of the full disk.

Your bootable partitions must all be within that first 137 GB too.

However, note that I'm experiencing rather severe overheating problems of the HM160HC hard drive (and hence the adjacent wireless card, which then crashes the system) in an Inspiron 6000. So I would recommend looking for a cooler drive for the Inspiron 6000.

 

I've been using the HM160HC for a little while in a Dell latitude d610.

I've used a number of drives in this laptop and this drive is indeed fast. Not sure if it's the fastest as I havn't used them all including the western digital wd3200beve but it must be close.

I believe this drive is not only perhaps the fastest 2.5" ata drive you can buy but also has nearly the lowest power consumption of any 2.5" 5400rpm drive to date.

Overall very pleased with the performance, it's quiet during seeks, and stays cooler than the wd2500beve i used. So I'm happy to have it in my trusty d610.

Now for my minor concerns (rarely an absolutely perfect product) :

Vibration :
I've noticed there is a distinct very very light vibration with this drive when in my d610. Not audible, but you can feel it on the wrist when typing especially when the laptop has all rubber feet planted on a solid surface. Again very, verry light and sometimes not even noticeable depending on the surface the laptop is on.

Idle clicking / Power management in bios (load/unload cycle?):
I have heard a few loud clicks when the laptop is left idle. I havn't had enough time with the drive to see a pattern yet. Reading reviews of this drive this is a known characteristic of power management & the load/unload cycle. There is even a post relating to a fix for linux. Not sure if it will effect anything but it is a harsh noise from an otherwise silent drive.

 

I've noticed very good battery life too, after upgrading to this Samsung. Hard to put into numbers though.

 

Hey guys, thanks for keeping up this thread, it has definitely helped my geriatric laptop make somewhat of a comeback. Here's my laptop info:

IBM THINKPAD T22 (2647-8EU)
Intel Mobile Pentium III
512 PC100 SDRAM
Max mobo HDD speed: Mode 2, ATA/33

Original HDD:
IBM Travelstar
DJSA-220
20.0 GB
2 MB Cache
DMA/ATA-66 (Ultra)
4200 RPM
Manufactured 27 AUG 2001

Here is my run with HD Tune with the DJSA-220:





Ouch! OK, here is the HM160HC (keep in mind my notebook is ATA/33):






In addition to the 5x speed upgrade, I can barely tell the notebook is running with the HM160HC as opposed to the DJSA-220's jet like take-off and annoying buzz. The CPU speed difference in the tests is amazing!

The upgrade from 20 GB to 160 GB is always a plus. I performed a clean install using XP SP1 install disc - it was able to see all ~160 GB (even thought I still like to partition my OS), so no problems not recognizing HDD space.

 

A good price will be available for the next 72 hours. Newegg is offering a 15% off promo code on all hard drives. That brings it down to about $43.48. I would recommend also paying for the extended warranty for $6.99, just in case. The 320 gb WD drive will be $80.98. (These prices are without a possible tax, based on your location.)

 

That is great to hear, - maxxing out that ATA 33 bus
good luck with your HM160HC,

Ive had no problems with mine, and its been a year or so now

K-TRON

 

Hi guys!

What do you think of the benchmark on my hard drive?

Thanks.


P.S. My notebook is an Acer Aspire 1691WLMi.

 

It's good.

The downward spikes indicate you have some background processes running. But no problem.

 

Well!

Thank you very much!

 

We'll I finally decided to upgrade the HD on my old laptop again. This time I went with the WD3200BEVE. The first time I got a Samsung HM160HC, but it died within a few days. I've had bad luck with Samsung Hard drives as my 750GB F1 drive also died after only a few months of casual use. So I decided to pay the extra $$$ and get the 320GB WD.

Performance wise I would say they are pretty much the same.


Benchmarks were the same machine, system image, and defragged.

Original Seagate 5400.3 5,400RPM


Samsung HM160HC 5,400RPM


WD3200BEVE IDE 5,400RPM


For rough comparision WD320 Black 7200RPM drive (Not the same harddrive image, machine, or OS (Win7))


I can't do HDTune because for whatever reason it reports insanely fast speeds on this laptop.

 

Interesting. So WD3200BEVE is the fastest ATA hard drive now.

 

No, they look roughly the same.
The slight differences could be a simple background processes or something.
The 1% difference in crystalmark means nothing. In reality they should be identical in every category except for access, which the samsung should beat it in.

K-TRON

 

28.33 vs. 25.75 is a lot more than 1% K-Tron It's more like 10%. The 4K read is even faster.

Based on those benchies WD definitely looks faster. And Crystal Mark is a very good predictor of real life performance.

He would have to conduct the benchmark three times though. And the fact that the Samsung crashed a couple of days later doesn't help.

 

2mb/sec is not really enough to justify a winner
I dont have my HM160HC in front of me, its at home
Phil, if you can, run a crystalmark on your HM160HC and see what you get
- you know for comparisons

Crystalmark is still synthetic

K-TRON

 

I don't think results can be compared between different systems with different CPU and NTFS vs. FAT32 but here you go.

I believe WD is the fastest now, but Samsung will be quieter and more power efficient.

 

Hmm, your results are very far off from MaxGeek's

I will ask my brother to test the HM160HC in his, and have him send me the result
I know my drive is in NTFS

K-TRON

 

Well there are so many circumstances influencing the result. My C: partition is only 30GB, I think that also influences.

 

The first run I had the Samsung had similar results. I made sure to defrag it and waited until the background processes were done. 30GB partition should keep your C: Drive at the faster part of the disk.

 

Well my HDD is fairly defragged, I think it's FAT32 that's skewing the result. Results for my D: partition (120GB FAT32 70% full) look quite different.

What laptop/CPU do you have MaxGeek?

 

This is in a Dell D810. Its a Pentium M 2GHZ.

 

My HM160HC is performing near identical to yours MaxGeek.
Mines in a 2.4Ghz P4M Inspiron 8500
So maybe the WD has a slight edge, but crystalmark is only synthetic.

The only way to know which is faster is to do a real life test. (Maybe Maxgeek can do that for us, since he has both drives)
One would have to copy, say a 5Gb folder with 1000files on the HM160HC from one folder to another, and copy the same files on the WD3200BEVE. Than time how long each takes. Thats about the only way I can think of to see which one is really faster

K-TRON

 

Yes duplicating a 5GB folder on the same drive, that would be really interesting. Booting Windows would also be interesting.

 

Dear all,
I am now using a NEC Pentium III 1GHz all-in-one style desktop with model number Mate MA90H, that I bought in Japan second hand shop two years ago. I always think it is a little slow even for web surfing. After reading this thread, I bought a Samsung HM160HC to replace the old Hitachi one.

After finishing disk cloning, I plugged the HM160HC in the PATA slot. When I just powered on the PC, I found that it become nearly silent. The noise that I thought comming out from fan is actually the idle noise of the old harddisk. And of course, there is significant speed up after the upgrade. Here is my testing result:

 

Sorry to interrupt but still considering these two drives (being discussed - i.e. Samsung HM160HC and WD 3200 BEVE). What still confuses me is, yep, the 48-bit LBA issue. I upgraded the BIOS on my Thinkpad T41 to the latest one but I haven't confirmed whether that gives me the support for the larger drives or not. I've been assured I'd be okay but I'm still not sure.

I just had some people from forums insist I'd have the support.

I ran HD Tune and Everest on my old drive, Seagate 4200rpm but the '48 bit LBA' box is still unchecked after the update. I don't know whether I need to re-install HD Tune or whether it is only analyzing the current drive (120 GB Seagate 4200 rpm drive) which of course, doesn't support the 48 LBA.

I think I am okay but anyway to confirm? Should I email IBM/Lenovo support or would anyone know in the Lenovo forums? Does anyone know here? ;-)

This thread is great, btw!!!!!!! I have been debating over these two drives for a while since I discovered when I upgraded my 40GB drive, I got a SLOW 120 GB Seagate HDD, 4200 rpm and it gets AWFUL, AWFUL LOW benchmark scores! It's a Seagate ST910824A!!!!! Go ahead, laugh, I got burned! That's what happens when you buy on impulse and are too lazy to install yourself!

 

Hello, I decided to buy a HM160HC after deciding the $725 for a 64GB SLC ATA SSD was sort of ridiculous.

Any way, I thought, oh great, I'll double my speed...(here is a picture of my old drive)



Well, after some "interesting" experiences copying my data to the new drive, and more "fun" getting into DMA 5, I have a dilemma...the drive isn't fast enough. It's barely faster than what I replaced it with. The strange thing is, it STARTS fast...



This is a regular boot with processes. I'm running HD tune during the boot for a good reason. Take out the spikes, and you get a drive which starts at 55MB/s and ends just over 40MB/s. I wish I could get 40MB/s.

This next boot is a typical one (no processes this time) whose purpose is to show you a drop at 70%. Notice how the graph then stays between 30MB/s and 40MB/s. This drop happens every single time the computer boots, and I don't know why. I have disabled every process and batch file under the sun, and it still happens. Please understand, these drops don't have to happen at 70%, they may happen at 5% or 95%, it's just some point in the boot process which immediately changes the HD throughput to about 35MB/s. As you see..



Now personally, I don't care about a drop at 70% - that's what circular platters do, but they're not supposed to drop randomly, rather gradually as the head moves across the platter. But the thing is, after this performance drop, the performance stays that way, at least until the next boot. Immediately after the last benchmark, I did this one:



I didn't change settings or anything. You can just imagine the last graph continuing here forever. The performance never rises above 37MB/s.

So my question here is, what is this? What could I possibly do? (I already have the most recent IDE driver and my BIOS is as helpful as a brick)

 

Can you give other system info (Brand, Model, Controller, Driver version etc.)

 

controller driver getting loaded at boot possibly? It may be forcing it into a lower DMA mode.

 

I have a

Compaq Presario 905US
ALi M5229 Controller (same as the guy on page 4)
Version 5.1.2600.5512 - ALi/Compaq don't provide any drivers, this is from Microsoft and it's the newest I can find.

BTW, notice that the drive is listed as "137 GB." I haven't figured that one out. The first time I migrated my partition to the new drive, I got 149GB of space (160 * .92), but HD tune called it 137 GB. As per the guy on page four, I resized the partition to 127GB, but HD tune still says 137GB. I've uninstalled the disk many times, but...well...not important I guess.

@Dillio187
Possibly, but I'm not sure why the access would be fast before the driver which is supposed to enable it loads. Right now I'm looking into installing flaky drivers for other ALi chips to test this possibility.

 

Hutchins, have you tried reinstalling the IDE driver?
Go into device manager and disable the IDE controller. Windows should automatically reinstall the proper drive. That should fix your problem.
If it doesnt, try setting the drive to DM4 or DMA5, if you have that option

K-TRON

 

It may be that the notebook can't address more than 137GB as explained here.

John

 

All right, I just reinstalled Windows - no luck. The drive does the exact same thing, good performance than a sudden drop (for some weird reason the level it caps at varies, at best it's about 35MB/s, this time around it's 25MB/s). I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Other people with the same controller got about 50MB/s. Using DMA 5...I played with ES tool for hours. Installed, uninstalled the Ultra IDE driver for the M5229 (It's quite fast until the unexplained performance drop).

I think I might be stuck with 35MB/s for this one, and I'll never know why.

Check this out

 

Hello,

What an EXCELLENT thread this is. I periodically upgrade people's laptops who complain that they run too slow. Currently, I am working on a Gateway laptop that has a 100GB Hitachi PATA 4200rpm drive in it. Thanks to this forum, the decision was easy (and cheap!) to make the upgrade to the Samsung HM160HC ($49 new on Ebay). I was struggling a bit to find a decent 2.5" 7200rpm PATA drive. These types of drives seem to be few and far between, and are also ridiculously priced! Once again, this thread was able to justify to me that the Samsung 5400rpm drive is actually faster than most of the PATA 7200rpm drives out there. I'll see if I can post some HD Tune scores to compare between the Hitachi and the Samsung (when it arrives).

I'll also be upgrading one of my newer laptop hard drives (HP Pavilion) which has SATA. Does anyone have any recommendations as to what the fastest SATA 2.5" hard drive currently is? From the benchmarks and other forums I've read, it seems the WD Scorpio Black (7200rpm) is the drive to beat. Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thanks again and great discussion!