Did I get the wrong HDD?

F

Freezebyte

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
2,403
Well I built the below system with the following HDD that I "thought" was a pretty good buy and solid performer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148288

The past month with this HDD and my first Vista build i'm amazed at how often I'm waiting for the HDD to load data, its always seems to be accessing it. I enabled all the speed features in Vista to get it to go faster, but I am dissapointed at the potential speed gain I'd thought I get from going from my old Seagate 7200.7 IDE's to this 7200.11 SATA drive, but i'm not seeing it. It just feels the entire machine is hampered by this drive.

Everyones been touting this drive like its the supreme drive of 7200's. Did I seriously hamper my computers performance by not getting this one in comparison to my seagate?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136319&Tpk=WD6401AALS
 
Well I can't answer your question, but that WD 640gb drive is awesome. It honestly is in a somewhat close proximity IMO to the raptors. I have the older version of it and even that is pretty fast but I would've got that WD if I were you.
 
In a way, yeah. In initial reviews, the initial 7200.11 hard drives -- the 500GB, 750GB, and 1TB models -- didn't perform very well compared to their 7200.10 predecessors. In some benchmarks, the 7200.10 models outperformed them. It was only recently, when the newer models using the 320+GB drive platters arrived, did the overall performance improved.

But I don't understand why the 7200.11 would struggle against the 7200.7. I suggest downloading and using a program called HD Tune and showing us a copy of the results from testing out both the 7200.11 and the 7200.7 drives (using the program, of course).
 
tiraides said:
In a way, yeah. In initial reviews, the initial 7200.11 hard drives -- the 500GB, 750GB, and 1TB models -- didn't perform very well compared to their 7200.10 predecessors. In some benchmarks, the 7200.10 models outperformed them. It was only recently, when the newer models using the 320+GB drive platters arrived, did the overall performance improved.

But I don't understand why the 7200.11 would struggle against the 7200.7. I suggest downloading and using a program called HD Tune and showing us a copy of the results from testing out both the 7200.11 and the 7200.7 drives (using the program, of course).
Click to expand...

Well I no longer have the 7200.7's around, gave em away. Shit, well its not worth buying a another drive and rebuilding my system all over for a few less seconds

HDTune_Benchmark_ST3500320AS.png


A second test

HDTune_Benchmark_ST3500320AS2.png
 
I'm pretty sure that the 'cuda.11 is much faster than your 'cuda.7. WD6400AAKS gets around 90MB/s @ 12ms... not much difference. Vista is slow at first, while it learns your tendencies. What are some specific examples of your disappointments?
 
I used to swear by Seagate drives but the 500gb and 1,000gb sata drives are the most RMA'd thing I've ever seen. Good luck.
 
Will your hd tune score be higher if the drive is hooked up as a secondary?
 
Hey, i have the same HDD and it works great for me. Loads up everything very fast. But i guess there seems to b a high RMA rate unfortunately. Btw, how do u enable speed features in vista?
 
Here is what mine looks like:

tuning.jpg


tuning2.jpg


Not any better than what urs looks like... I think mine runs perfectly fine tho,
 
j3ff86 said:
Will your hd tune score be higher if the drive is hooked up as a secondary?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the Seagate 500GB HDD in question is a SATA model, and SATA devices run on their own separate channels.

Those HD Tune scores are pretty consistent with what I've seen in benchmarks, so I don't know what the problem is. (Maybe the OP has exceedingly high expectations?)
 
If the drive isn't your OS drive, the test will be slightly faster, not by much, and CPU usage would be down.
 
To answer the OP's OQ, I doubt very much you'd feel any difference between those two drives you've posted. They're both quite fast, not much difference between the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top