Hello, I just bought a Seagate ST2000DX001, I installed it and then cloned my old 1TB Samsung ST1000DM005/HD103SJ onto it under the assumption the hybrid will perform better with load times and what not (for games primarily). Because a real world test would make too much sense I decided to get some benchmarking software instead and ran into these numbers. I used CrystalDiskMark.
http://i.imgur.com/C0By1BA.png
I pointed out in the picture that I have four partitions across 3 drives. My (tiny) SSD with my OS and a favorite game [C:], my new 'hybrid' drive with a partition [D:] consisting of a cloned image from my older mechanical drive, and a partition [E:] unused right now (although it has been formatted for use), and then the (now) empty (but formatted) mechanical drive [M:].
So my question is are these the results to be expected from the new drive? I unfortunately never ran a test on the mechanical drive before to get an idea of how it performed while it was being used, but I still wouldn't have imagined getting results like this.
Did cloning the old mechanical drive onto the newer hard drive also transfer with it unoptimized settings that could be slowing down the read/write times? If so, is there any way to fix that without having to re-copy the data?
When a drive has 'nothing' on it, does that boost the benchmarked speeds by a lot? That's what seems to be going on here, although the empty partition from the new drive isn't performing much better than the older mechanical drive if that's the case.
Should I ignore the benchmark and see if I can notice real world performance differences? I'm hoping I would get an overall performance boost from this newer drive, but if I basically bought just an extra 2TB I guess I'm cool with that too. It was $90 on Amazon and I was running out of space anyway.
http://i.imgur.com/C0By1BA.png
I pointed out in the picture that I have four partitions across 3 drives. My (tiny) SSD with my OS and a favorite game [C:], my new 'hybrid' drive with a partition [D:] consisting of a cloned image from my older mechanical drive, and a partition [E:] unused right now (although it has been formatted for use), and then the (now) empty (but formatted) mechanical drive [M:].
So my question is are these the results to be expected from the new drive? I unfortunately never ran a test on the mechanical drive before to get an idea of how it performed while it was being used, but I still wouldn't have imagined getting results like this.
Did cloning the old mechanical drive onto the newer hard drive also transfer with it unoptimized settings that could be slowing down the read/write times? If so, is there any way to fix that without having to re-copy the data?
When a drive has 'nothing' on it, does that boost the benchmarked speeds by a lot? That's what seems to be going on here, although the empty partition from the new drive isn't performing much better than the older mechanical drive if that's the case.
Should I ignore the benchmark and see if I can notice real world performance differences? I'm hoping I would get an overall performance boost from this newer drive, but if I basically bought just an extra 2TB I guess I'm cool with that too. It was $90 on Amazon and I was running out of space anyway.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram