Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Super Moderator RetiredGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Manning, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,436
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 1,457 Times in 1,326 Posts

    Drive Performance 10K vs 7.2K Drive

    Hey Y'all,

    I got a new 10K WD Spinner for Xmas and thought I'd do some performance testing just for kicks. {Yeah, retired guys have nothing better to do!}

    The chart compares my new WD 10K drive vs my old Segate 7.2K drive. I found it interesting that having partitioned the drive (I cloned the ST to the WD) the first partition turned in marginally better figures than the second partition. Also the sequential read didn't show that much of a performance gain but the Random tests were another thing entirely!

    Enjoy
    DiskPerformance.JPG
    Last edited by RetiredGeek; 2014-12-26 at 21:57.
    May the Forces of good computing be with you!

    RG

    PowerShell & VBA Rule!

    My Systems: Desktop Specs
    Laptop Specs

  2. #2
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,335
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 267 Times in 260 Posts
    Same areal density on the two disks? The only thing surprising to me is how close the 7200 is on sequential read, unless, the areal density is different.

  3. #3
    WS Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,191
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 986 Times in 916 Posts
    As the 10k disk is half the capacity it probably has one less platter and therefore 2 fewer heads. That will make a big difference in random seek times as you have less mass to drive. The lack of difference in sequential performance is probably due to internal limitations - it costs more to build electronics that will process the data faster than it does to make the disk spin faster and you can "sell" it on the basis of a "faster" spindle, not on electronics.

    cheers, Paul

  4. #4
    Super Moderator RetiredGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Manning, South Carolina
    Posts
    9,436
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 1,457 Times in 1,326 Posts
    Hey Guys,

    I forgot to mention that the new WD 10K is actually a 2.5" drive mounted in a 3.5" frame w/heatsinks! While the Segate is a regular 3.5" low profile drive.

    Here is what Amazon has to say about the Segate:
    • 1TB storage capacity with SATA 6Gb/s NCQ Interface
    • Seagate AcuTrac servo technology delivers dependable performance, even with hard drive track widths of only 75 nanometers
    • Seagate OptiCache technology boosts overall performance by as much as 45% over the previous generation.
    • Seagate Smart Align technology provides a simple, transparent migration to Advanced Format 4K sectors.


    And the WD Drive:
    • Ultra fast - Designed around a 10,000 RPM spin speed, these SATA 6 Gb/s drives include a 64 MB cache and deliver the ultimate performance for photo and video editing
    • Rock-solid reliability - With 1.4 million hours MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure), these drives have the highest available reliability rating on a high capacity SATA drive
    • High capacity - State-of-the-art technology delivers a balance of high performance and high capacity perfect for data-intensive workloads that require large amounts of storage such as video editing, 3D rendering and scientific modeling
    • 5 year limited warranty

    May the Forces of good computing be with you!

    RG

    PowerShell & VBA Rule!

    My Systems: Desktop Specs
    Laptop Specs

  5. #5
    Super Moderator BATcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    A cultural area in SW England
    Posts
    3,420
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 195 Times in 175 Posts
    <sniff>
    I was working with racks of Compaq SCSI drives about 12-15 years ago which span at 15,000 rpm.
    They were really fast in shifting data! But they cost a diplomat's ransom...
    </sniff>
    BATcher

    Time prevents everything happening all at once...

  6. #6
    WS Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,191
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 986 Times in 916 Posts
    Smaller housing equals smaller disks and heads, so seek times should be better.
    If the disk was able to shift the data at near SATA speed you would expect read rates around 500MB/s

    cheers, Paul

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •