Which drive is actually faster?

[limitedaccess]

Both drives only have a single 200gb partition filled with the same data (~30gb worth) that I may enlarge in the future (have separate drives for non application data). Both tested on Intel SATA 2 ports using a separate drive for OS. The usage will be mostly applications (mostly games) that do not fit on my SSD as well as some portable apps and thunderbird profile (and similar stuff). Slower drive will go into the backup/shared PC.

I believe the WD10EARs is faster (as it scores higher in the more relevant categories), but I just want to make sure as the older WD5000AAKS actually does score higher in 3 categories (such as access time, although this may be due to how HD Tune tests).

Also does HD Tune test the entire drive or just the partition? Judging by the data here I'm assuming it tests the entire drive whereas Crystal Disk is testing the partition?

WD10EARS (1tb) (head parking disabled via WDIDLE)

Crystal Disk Mark (1gb test, 5 pass)

Sequential Read : 91.595 MB/s
Sequential Write : 88.219 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 37.706 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 57.179 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.504 MB/s [ 123.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.204 MB/s [ 293.8 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.422 MB/s [ 347.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.953 MB/s [ 232.6 IOPS]

WD5000AAKS (500gb)

Crystal Disk Mark (1gb test, 5 pass)

Sequential Read : 75.709 MB/s
Sequential Write : 74.973 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 33.474 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 45.142 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.510 MB/s [ 124.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 1.133 MB/s [ 276.5 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 1.185 MB/s [ 289.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 1.153 MB/s [ 281.5 IOPS]

 

[drescherjm]

The WD5000AAKS wins in access time because it is a 7200 RPM drive and the WD10EARs is a 5X00 RPM drive. Although it looks from your benchmarks that the WD10EARs is a little faster when short stroked to 200GB

 

[limitedaccess]

Yea I should mention in this case I mean which drive is faster for my purposes short stroked to 200gb (possible expanded to 250-300gb in the future). Not necessarily which drive is faster in general.

It is an older WD5000AAKS 500gb with 3x platters (16mb cache), not the newer higher density ones, while the WD10EARS 1tb as 2x platters (64mb cache) so I was wondering how the higher platter density among other factors would factor in the speed discussion. And as you mention with both being short short stroked to the same the size, the WD10EARS benefits from being a larger size.

I'm also wondering whether or not the WD5000AAKS actually has better access times for my case as this would depend on whether or not HD Tune is testing the entire drive vs. the partition only (since the WD10EARS loses its short stroke advantage relative to its size). If you compare say the access times for up to 40% capacity (WD5000AKS) vs. up to 20% (WD10EARS) which is what they are both short stroked too, the WD10EARS actually seems to be slightly better on the graphs. Also the shorter access times for the WD5000AAKS do not seem to be translating much into the random read/write tests done on Crystal Mark aside from high Queue Depth random writes (probably not very useful for my purposes, as the games will be writing to the SSD).

 

[Liger88]

I think you're right with the platters despite having smaller cache and when you factor in the 7200RPM for me it's a no brainer unless you chose a different 1TB model. Every time I switch to 5400RPM to be cheap for either daily use or storage I ultimately regret it for its slow access times alone. It may not look big at first, but it compounds and doesn't really show you real-life results when you're using it.

I can only speak from the USB 2.0 external perspective since both of those drives seem like the exact same ones in mine. The 500GB WD's were great models if you ask me. I backed up my entire 500GB to my 2TB (both WD) so they are always a carbon copy of one another and the 500GB is snappy like my regular internal hard drives. HD Tune also showed similar results as yours with each winning select tests, but from my actual daily archival use the 2TB (probably not much different from the 1TB models) are just dog slow. Opening the same folder with tens of thousands of files in about 2,000 folders opens instantly on the 500GB external but often takes 5-10 seconds to load with the 2TB model. I have all the features disabled to keep it at a steady idle and nothing has made it improve. For loading games or apps this may be a bigger factor with constant use.

Again this is speaking from running very similar drives externally. WD has really crapped on the external market if you ask me, those 500GB's were beauties and I would take that over a slower RPM 1TB for my data any day of the week. Can't go back to 5400 no matter what marketing crap they pull it just always leads to disappointment if you ask me.