Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which Is The Better Hard Drive To Install OS/Games On?

Last response: in Storage
Share
April 10, 2009 7:34:12 PM

I own two hard drives: (both 16MB Cache)
WD SE16 640GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Seagate 7200.10 250GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Seagate is a single platter of 250GB
WD has two-320GB platters.

My question is, which would be faster in running my operating system and games? (Booting up, shutting down, running OS, loading levels, etc). I'm planning on using one HD for my OS/Games and one HD for storage.

I assume that it's the hard drive with the faster latency? According to Newegg, the Seagate has a 4.16ms avg latency. However the WD6400AAKS does not list its latency and I cannot find anything online about it.

While I do think the WD6400AAKS is faster overall, it also has two platters, albeit each platter being bigger than my Seagates. Since the OS is small and I don't have too many games I want to install, would it be better to run them off my single platter Seagate?

Thanks in advance :) 
a b G Storage
April 10, 2009 8:04:34 PM

Simple answer, install your stuff on the faster drive, the WD.
Related resources
April 10, 2009 8:33:48 PM

i will go for the Seagate for the OS and the other for all the other stuff.
a b G Storage
April 10, 2009 10:06:29 PM

The WD will be faster. All other things roughly equal (which they are in this case), the larger platter size will win.
April 11, 2009 1:56:55 AM

yep, theyre both pretty close but id definately put the games and whatnot on the WD.
a c 170 G Storage
April 11, 2009 2:14:20 AM

Latency of all 7200 rpm drives is about the same.
7200rpm = 7200/60sec = 120 revolutions per second.
It takes 1/120 = .00833 seconds for a full revolution. that is 8.33 milliseconds.
Latency is the average time for the data to come under the read/write heads, whis 1/2 a revolution.
That is why the latency of a 7200rpm drive is 4.16 ms or so.


The larger drive will have more data packed into the outer rings than a less dense drive, making it somewhat faster in data transfer.

Still, it really won't make much of a difference in performance.
April 11, 2009 2:18:47 AM

geofelt said:
Latency of all 7200 rpm drives is about the same.
7200rpm = 7200/60sec = 120 revolutions per second.
It takes 1/120 = .00833 seconds for a full revolution. that is 8.33 milliseconds.
Latency is the average time for the data to come under the read/write heads, whis 1/2 a revolution.
That is why the latency of a 7200rpm drive is 4.16 ms or so.


The larger drive will have more data packed into the outer rings than a less dense drive, making it somewhat faster in data transfer.

Still, it really won't make much of a difference in performance.


wow, you did your math :p 

yehh, OP you do what he explained
April 11, 2009 4:24:06 AM

Is it worth it to put OS on 10k rpm and games on WD 1TB Caviar Black or just shove everything on the 10rpm Raptor? The Raptor dropped in price! Or is it a waiste and just get a 1TB WD Caviar Black for everything?
April 11, 2009 4:35:08 PM

nahh, performance would be minimal. you would most likely be better off putting the games on the 10k rpm drive. load times would be much less:) 
a c 170 G Storage
April 11, 2009 6:07:50 PM

10k determines the latency. There is no direct correlation of 10k to the maximum data transfer rate. What matters is the density, and how much data can be transferred in one revolution. What matters for application and level loading is the maximum data transfer rate.

If you use a WD 1tb caviar black, it will be faster than a 10k raptor.
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.p...

The 300gb 10k velociraptor will be the best conventional drive you can use.
!