Ok. why is my 5400 HD faster than my 7200???

Alright. Let me cut to the chase here.

I just by chance did an HD tune performace test on the stock 5400.3 seagate HD that came with my dv6000t, and it was 3 MB/s faster than the 7200 rpm seagate 7200.1 drive i replace it with!

the burst rate was also significantly higher on the 5400 rpm.

uuuuum, WTF! it wasnt just a fluke either, i duplicated the same results 2 more times.

Same OS, same everything.


AIRMAN! HEEEEEEELLLP!

 

so how did u test the 7200 drive? did u install it or used a usb interface? Are there any other readings so it can show which is faster across the board of performance tests?

 

I don't think that's right at all. Show us your benchmarks.

It's possible that the seek/access times on the 5400 are better than the 7200, but I would doubt it; it's also possible your 7200 drive is very old.

 

Airman to the rescue!

Drive throughput is affected by several factors: rpm, cache size, arial density, and the number of platters. Even the operating system on the disc will affect the capture speed. Unfortunately just because it's 7200RPM vs 5400RP doesn't mean it will be faster.

There is a lot of misinformation floating around NBR about this. In general the Hitachi's seem to be slightly quicker than the Seagates and a few others however in general the 7200RPM drives consume more power and show little if any performance

There is usually a slight boost in file transfers with obviously larger files writing faster overall however real world application speed isn't really effected. Atleast you got a decent Seagate drive, my dv6000t came with the Fujitsu which seems alittle slow in comparsion.

here's a good link:

http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=45186

Someone bought a 7200RPM drive for their Macbook and also experienced the same if not slower performance.

You have any other questions or whatnot feel free to pm me, I have a jam I need to be at, bb in a couple hours.

 

Old? what do you mean?

I have XP Pro installed on both. I swapped the 5400 in my notebook the other day becuase i wanted to try a new linux distro, and just by chance i ran HDtune.

i actually did take screen shots, but i'm on my 710 right now at my shop.

Thanks for the input. This is a real pickle of a stuation me thinks. the specs on both drives are the same, with the exception of the 7200 being double the capacity.

I think i am going to contact Seagate and get it replaced. Their website says that my warranty is good through august 2011 !!

Anything anyone else can think of?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the fact that the disc has double the capacity slow down the seek time? I was told that is the case, and that partitioning drives to 50/50 would increase speed and load times, because it only needs to seek 1/2 the disc.

 

That's right

 

well i do have the 7200 partitioned, C:30 GB and then the rest as storage for right now, i had it set up slightly different but my C: is always 30.


So you think its normal then? I dont really have the time to curse out seagate, so if i can avoid it at all it'd be great...

 

Also, on my both my dell's upgraded their stock hd's to 7200 rpm drives that were also larger in capacity, did actually speed up performace quite a bit. then again those were ide drives.

woe is me.

 

I did another test, here is the 5400

 

and the 7200

 

nice backgrounds - where did you get em?

 

deviantart of course! home of the coolest artwork and wallpapers.

 

anyone here have a recommendation on Macbook Pro's?

Currently they come standard with 5400 160gig drve, or for $100 less you get a 7200 100 gig drive.

I''d be recording audio and using video. But in either case I would still be using external drives.

 

with all of my other notebooks, upgrading to a 7200 rpm drive increased the performance and overall peppiness. those were IDE drives though, ATA-6, whatever you want to call them.

this is my first notebook with a sata drive, and as you can see, the 7200 rpm drive didnt help. so unless there is something screwy with this drive....7200 rpm just isnt worth it.

 

I have to partially disagree with some of the previous posters on this one. I realize there are many factors that dictate drive performance. Number of platters, number of heads, cache size, communication mode, rpm, drive density, etc, etc, etc. All else being equal however a 7200rpm 2 platter drive with 8 megs of cache at 100 gigs should always be faster then the 5400 rpm 2 platter drive with 8 megs of cache at 100 gigs. RPM has a greater influence on drive speed then platter count, especially when dealing with very large files. Personally, I've upgraded many a computer from 5400 to 7200 and even higher rpm drives (not laptops) and I have NEVER seen a case where performance decreased. Why it did in your case, I don't know. Maybe you did get one of those bizarre combinations that resulted in lower overall net performance. Maybe because of the way your partitioned your drive (I don't know which partition you are testing on) you are doing all your speed tests from the back side (slower side) of the drive. I don't know why your performance is lower, but in general I have to disagree with the previous poster and say that a 7200 rpm should be faster then it's 5400 rpm counter part.

I find it odd that in your pictures you posted you have data drop outs. It looks like the graph for your drive speed drops to zero every so often. I find that suspicious.

 

One other note to this..... remember that with all the advanced caching that windows (especially Vista) does that application testing will not give you a good indication of your drive speed, rather how well the caching is working along with your drive. If you want to measure drive speed you almost have to use a benchmark program, or do a very large file operation. Applications will be cached by windows and will not reflect the true non-burst transfer speeds you are getting from your hard drive.