Something's wrong here

Z

zod96

Suspected BAD TRADER
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
2,709
:confused:

Just got my new WD 640 GB Black Edition HD I ran HD tune and here's what I get




Is their something I need to setup before hand???? This seems like a rather crappy score...
 
Look at the minimum transfer rate its like 2.5 MB's that's extremely shitty
 
Looks decent, that spike where it drags down to 2.5 is probably something going on in the background like OS activity.
 
My WD 320GB blue drive scores higher than the 640 GB black drive
 
Is the jumper on the drive set to sata 3gbit instead of 1,5gbit?
Not really sure if that would make a difference or not.
 
Their is no jumper on the drive. And when I goto the WD website their is no tools to setup the dirve to use sata 3.0, what do I need to setup the drive?
 
I third what RogueTrip said; the spike is what's taking your minimum down. If you look at your average, it's still good :)
 
Ok but even if that were true, my 320GB drive is besting the 640GB drive which is supposed to be much quicker than the 320GB drive. And when I run the bench on the 320GB drive I get no spike, on the 640GB drive it happens everytime
 
zod96 said:
Ok but even if that were true, my 320GB drive is besting the 640GB drive which is supposed to be much quicker than the 320GB drive. And when I run the bench on the 320GB drive I get no spike, on the 640GB drive it happens everytime
Click to expand...

Have you done a full format?

Also how is the 320 besting the 640? the 640 has lower access times and higher avg transfer rate....Yea theres that spike but other then that everything looks great.
 
first of all, using either SATA1 or SATA2 mode should produce identical sustained read speed. The only difference between using SATA1 or SATA2 is HDD's burst speed. I wouldnt worry about getting HDD to work in SATA2 mode, the performance difference is very minor to none.

Aren't the 320GB and 640GB the same drive? with the exception of 320GB only has 16MB cache and uses fewer platter when compared to the 640GB version? I think they are essentially the same drive, I am not surprise to see both drives produce similar benchmark numbers. Actaully you can see the 640GB drive is clearly ahead of the 320GB drive from your screenshots. When both drives reach the inner tracks of the platters, the 320GB driver can only sustain read speed around ~50MB/s and the 640GB drive can do at least ~60MB/s. The WD Caviar Black certainly has advantage here.

Your number looks quite normal except the latency seem a bit too high. I have the same 640GB WD Caviar Black drive, and I have ran it with HDTach, the latency for my drive is 12.4ms, which is a lot lower than the number you have. Maybe you should also try HDTach and see what happens.
 
If the spike is in the same spot every time, then that usually means that the drive had found some bad sectors sometime in the past, and has automatically remapped them to the spares area. That is normal for drives. If you get more in the future, then that is an indication that the drive is going south. An occaisional bad sector is normal. Once they start to go bad, then the spares get used up fairly quickly.

Also, the little orange looking dots for the seek time test should be in a tight band. The ones you have spreading up into the upper parts of the graph means that something is accessing your drive causing the benchmark to run slower than it should.

If you benchmark your OS drive, you will get results like that. The best way to test it is as an addon drive to another OS drive.

Don
 
Ok I disable just about everything, I have like 15 processes running. If I turn AMM off on both my 320GB and the 640GB the access time on both are like 13.3. So far the 320GB is pretty much tied in everything with the 640GB. I thought the 640GB was alot faster but I guess not. With AMM on the 640GB has access times of like 17 ms and the 320GB with AMM on its like 16, and I am using AHCI...
 
Here we go again with that low burst rate; it should be much higher, well over 200MB... I don't know why these tests people post never show it where it should be, but there's just no way that WD 640GB drive (either the AAKS or the AALS) can't pump data from the onboard buffer at well over 200MB/s, I just don't believe it for a second.
 
I'll probably return the 640GB drive. Its not any faster than the 320GB blue drive. All the specs say the 640GB drive should kill the 320GB drive, but after testing it for a while it seems that's not the case. They pretty much tied....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top