can someone explain me about hd tune result?

i got these result with the same hdd. both with same OS (fresh install of vista Home Premium SP1). i did the first bench 6 month ago, the second just did it now.







why they are so different (i did 4 times, and the graphic is almost the same). i mean the second one is "less linear" than the first one... however the average transfer is almost the same.

worth to upgrade to a Samsung 320GB HM320JI? because acording to this thread the 320gb is about 60% faster in average transfer(32mb/s vs 50mb/s)

PS: i barely use 80 GB of my HDD lol..

 

Kossel, nothing to worry about. The damage is not permanent.
You have too many background processes running, which are causing all of the peaks in the second graph.
Go to the start orb, go to the run command and type in MSCONFIG.
Than go to the startup and processes tabs and shut off processes for applications and such you are not using. That will decrease the load on the harddrive, making the hdtune result more smooth.
Also running disc cleanup and disc defragmenter can do wonders on removing those peaks.

K-TRON

 

And if you consider a 320GB HDD don't go for samsung lol.
Go for Hitachi, WD or seagate as they do 65-70MB/s. twice the performance of your drive.

And yeah, it's most likely because you're OS is not freshly installed.

 

While there is a thread already here can someone tell me how this test works out, my disks are in RAID0 and are 4200rpm.Why doesn`t it show the temp ?

 

Actually Intel RAID is one of the worst creations, by Intel ofcourse. You'll never get to see the temps, matrix storage manager screws it up.

You don't necessarily need to go for a 320GB HDD. You can go for the 120GB versions, of the newer HDDs, since the same 160GB platter will be used in the drive. The data density is going to be the same, whereas the Access times and Power Conumptions will be lower due to less no. of heads.

 

Have you updated to the latest intel matrix drivers?

Also your drives might not have SMART support

 

so a 160GB hdd will have almost the same performance than a 320 GB but with less power consumption?

 

Yes. For eg. take the Hitachi 7K320, which uses 160GB platters @7200RPM.
The 80GB/120GB/160GB models will use a single 160GB platter, which will have the same Read/Write performance as the 320GB version, but slightly better access times and power consumption, due to fewer heads.

Have a look at its datasheet....