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.

    Why is a 320GB 5400RPM HDD scored higher than 7K500?

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by hzxu, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. hzxu

    hzxu Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    I tested my Macbook Pro's HDD(not stock one) using XBench, it is a Samsung HM321HI 320GB drive, single platter:

    [​IMG]

    And found the result of 7K500:

    [​IMG]

    My one is a little bit higher than 7K500, does single platter contribute to this?

    Thanks!
     
    hzxu, Mar 4, 2011
    #1
  2. Tsunade_Hime

    Tsunade_Hime such bacon. wow

    Reputations:
    5,413
    Messages:
    10,711
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Does the results even matter? The disk tests for the 7k500 smash the Samsung..
     
    Tsunade_Hime, Mar 4, 2011
    #2
  3. James D

    James D Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    2,314
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    1,132
    Trophy Points:
    231
    because it is stupid program. All marks and scores are not good for using them in real life, some of them better and some not. But as for me (repeat that it is on my opinion) this program has so stupid algorithm of counting a score that a 5-year old baby would count and give a result much better. I think it is because of very strange coefficients multiplied score for secuental and score for random writes. Also don't forget that there are other reasons for mistaken score lesser free space, how data is situated on platers, and other.

    Just use WEI (windows index) to see approximate result. I can see with half of eye that 7k200 is better in almost all except random uncached writes and sequential uncached read 4kb (just a lil bit). So you can try WEI. Remember that index or score can't for sure show performance of it
     
    James D, Mar 4, 2011
    #3
  4. Ayle

    Ayle Trailblazer

    Reputations:
    877
    Messages:
    3,707
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    106
    It doesn't test for access time? Also depending on how full the drives are the results can be fairly unreliable.
     
    Ayle, Mar 4, 2011
    #4
  5. Judicator

    Judicator Judged and found wanting.

    Reputations:
    1,098
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Hm, well, the system versions are different, and the models are also slightly different, but I don't know how much that would affect the numbers. I also notice that the only thing that the 7K500 does worse than the Samsung in is uncached sequential 4K reads, and uncached random writes. It has higher values than the Samsung in everything else (sometimes much higher, while when it's lower, the numbers are only slightly lower). So either something else is being measured that's not being shown, or the numbers are skewed.
     
    Judicator, Mar 4, 2011
    #5