Two 320's. Hitachi & Seagate

[liveload]

Which 320GB drive is better for the gaming enthusiast for a single drive environment?

RAID will be something I'll put off initially, perhaps in a month or two from now I'll get a 2nd disk and try it.


Hitachi Deskstar T7K500 HDT725032VLA360

or

Seagate Barracuda ES ST3320620NS

 

[unhappy_mage]

The T7K500.

 

[liveload]

That's the 500GB drive, no?

Forgive my ignorance, but how does the linked test apply to the drives in question? Are they the same drive essentially as their bigger cousins, or are there differences in size and quantity of platters and also heads?

 

[unhappy_mage]

Different sizes in the same line tend to perform the same; they're the same assembly with more platters. Since only one platter is ever used at one time, there's no benefit or disadvantage to more platters (other than size, of course ).

 

[tuskenraider]

Since only one platter is ever used at one time, there's no benefit or disadvantage to more platters (other than size, of course ).

There can be more heat, power draw and noise on the disadvantage side.

 

[Michael Daly]

Different sizes in the same line tend to perform the same; they're the same assembly with more platters.

I haven't seen any reviews that would back this claim. I've noticed that when comparing drives of the same type/make with the only apparent difference being size, the larger ones tend to be faster.

Check the results for the Raptors for a significant difference. The 36GB is substantially slower than the 150. I've seen similar for most other brands, though usually with smaller differences. The Raptors stand out because they have had significant tech changes that are not obvious based on specs.

 

[unhappy_mage]

I haven't seen any reviews that would back this claim. I've noticed that when comparing drives of the same type/make with the only apparent difference being size, the larger ones tend to be faster.

I think I know why this might happen. The 1500ADFD has 4 times as many surfaces as the 360ADFD. So (on a defragged filesystem) files take up 1/4 as much seek distance on the 1500ADFD as the 360ADFD, and an application that seeks in a single file has 1/4 as far to go. If you used a program that only used every fourth sector or something and made the drive only use one side of a platter, my guess is it'd perform exactly like a 360ADFD.

In any case, what I meant wasn't so much that the drives in the same series do the same number of IOPS on a given test; rather, that the performance of the flagship drive is indicative of what the other drives will act like. So I think the results from Storagereview are relevant in this case.

 

[tuskenraider]

Check the results for the Raptors for a significant difference. The 36GB is substantially slower than the 150.

What link could you provide that shows a current 36GB and 150GB Raptor peforming much differently?

The 1500ADFD has 4 times as many surfaces as the 360ADFD. So (on a defragged filesystem) files take up 1/4 as much seek distance on the 1500ADFD as the 360ADFD, and an application that seeks in a single file has 1/4 as far to go.

I'm confused. You said a drive only uses one platter at a time, and I went searching for an answer on this, but the answer seems elusive in every "how hard drives work" type articles. If you have a file bigger than say, 4 of the drives secters, on a four platter drive, does a peice of the file each go on one sector of each platter?

 

[unhappy_mage]

I'm confused. You said a drive only uses one platter at a time, and I went searching for an answer on this, but the answer seems elusive in every "how hard drives work" type articles. If you have a file bigger than say, 4 of the drives secters, on a four platter drive, does a peice of the file each go on one sector of each platter?

I would guess that the manufacturers split things by cylinder. So the drive writes a complete circle to platter 1, then moves to platter 2, then moves to platter 3, and so on until all platters are used, then moves in a track to cylinder 2, platter 1, and so forth.

You can tell that it isn't a "use platter 1 up, then platter 2, etc" strategy by looking at the transfer rate graphs. If that were the case, they'd start at the maximum, decline quickly to the minimum, then spike to the max again and decline again.

 

[tuskenraider]

If that were the case, they'd start at the maximum, decline quickly to the minimum, then spike to the max again and decline again.

That was exactly my thought. Still, it's suprisingly difficult to get a definitive answer on file allocation for multiple plattered disks.

 

[liveload]

What seems important to me now, in terms of HDD performance, is going to be how much and how fast data is moved to and from the drive and not how fast the read head gets to non-sequential, unbuffered data. Am I off in that conclusion? If one were to appropriately partition and defragment (i.e. diskeeper) a drive, wouldn't that largely negate most of the advantages of the higher spindle speed and lower seek time? Isn't there a physical limit to how fast a bit can be read off of a drive platter? If the files are mostly sequential during things like gaming anyway, then what benefit is the raptor's advantages?

Anyhoo, seems like most are in favor of the Hitachi drive at the moment. Is that based upon the performance of the 500GB drive, or other data?

 

[Michael Daly]

What link could you provide that shows a current 36GB and 150GB Raptor peforming much differently?

Evolution of the Raptor - part of a larger article on the newer Raptor 150. If the claim that all drive of the same type were comparable in performance, I'd expect these to be a lot closer.

 

[Michael Daly]

I think I know why this might happen.

The explanation is in the "Evolution of the Raptor" article I linked to in the previous post.

In any case, what I meant wasn't so much that the drives in the same series do the same number of IOPS on a given test; rather, that the performance of the flagship drive is indicative of what the other drives will act like. So I think the results from Storagereview are relevant in this case.

If you mean "If company A makes several fast drives, then the newest version from A is likely also fast" that tends to be true. For example, WD drives are generally faster than Seagate, all other things being equal. However, there are enough exceptions that you have to do your homework. I wouldn't take that to mean that "If A's 80GB is faster than B's 80GB and A's 160GB is faster than B's 160GB, then A's 80GB is faster than B's 160GB". Possible, but not a logical conclusion.

 

[tuskenraider]

Evolution of the Raptor - part of a larger article on the newer Raptor 150. If the claim that all drive of the same type were comparable in performance, I'd expect these to be a lot closer.

That article is comparing the 150GB drive to the first edition Raptor so it's pretty much irrelevant since the new 36GB Raptor has the same firmware and cache algorythms that are now more desktop oriented as the 150GB drive has. I've provided links in this forum to various HD Tach graphs which show drive performance across the ADFD line of Raptors pretty much equal at low-level comparisons. With the same fimware and whatnot, I would think real application performance would follow suit.

 

[liveload]

Different sizes in the same line tend to perform the same; they're the same assembly with more platters. Since only one platter is ever used at one time, there's no benefit or disadvantage to more platters (other than size, of course ).

I followed up on this and found this article
Granted, the drives in the review are not the very newest, but page 8 mentions:

How do 250 GB drives compare to their respective flagships?
As mentioned before, our long-held rule that "all drives within a given family generally perform the same" is no longer the rock that it has been in the past. Drives within the same generation can now differ in capacity, density, specified seek times, transfer rates, and buffer size- all factors that may significantly impact high-level performance.

 

[Michael Daly]

Tit's pretty much irrelevant since the new 36GB Raptor has the same firmware and cache algorythms that are now more desktop oriented as the 150GB drive has.

My mistake - I didn't realize that they've upgraded the 36. When I looked at Tom's Hardware tables, the data there matched (more or less) the Storage Review info. I guess the Tom's data is out of date as well. Serves me right for not triple checking.