Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Running games off hard drives 7,200 vs 10,000 rpm

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 20, 2009 10:21:58 PM

Most of my games i run with no cd fixes, (so that they perform better, as i am not limited by my cd read speeds)

How much of a difference would games running off 10,000 rpm hard drives vs 7,200

does anyone have benchmarks or anything to help show the difference for my situation ?
July 21, 2009 12:12:47 AM

It's my understanding that your hdd speed isn't going to have much effect on gaming. You'll load a little faster, and it will help when the program has to access the pagefile, but most of the time you are running from RAM.
Related resources
a c 167 G Storage
July 21, 2009 12:59:27 AM

thiisonecrazy said:
Most of my games i run with no cd fixes, (so that they perform better, as i am not limited by my cd read speeds)

How much of a difference would games running off 10,000 rpm hard drives vs 7,200

does anyone have benchmarks or anything to help show the difference for my situation ?


7200 rpm or 10,000 rpm does not directly affect transfer rates. It does impact seek and rotational positioning times.

Here is a chart of the maximum data transfer rates for several drives:
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/bench_sort.p...
The velociraptor comes out on top of conventional sata drives.
For a lower cost alternative, just use the fastest(outer) 100gb of a WD caviar black 1tb drive. The increased density of the drive makes the data transfer quite fast.
For a higher cost alternative look at the upcoming SSD drives.
July 21, 2009 6:07:20 AM

i have no idea what you mean by using the outter 100 gb of a 1tb drive. also seems like a huge waste...
July 21, 2009 4:18:20 PM

What Geofelt meant was if you put the game files on the outer rim of your hard drive, (there are programs that allow you to do this such as perfect disk) the arm (so to speak) has less moving to do in order to locate the files it needs as they will all be on the outer rim and thus result in better performance.

Think of it as defragging your hard drive, but you get to place the files wherever you want... I have done it before and it does indeed show a great improvement.

Remember, the larger the capacity of the hard drive, the better the performance as the sectors are more compact/closer together.

Also, you can keep other files anywhere you want on the hard drive, it's the game files that you'll want to move to the outer rim...

Hope this helps.
a c 167 G Storage
July 21, 2009 4:24:25 PM

thiisonecrazy said:
i have no idea what you mean by using the outter 100 gb of a 1tb drive. also seems like a huge waste...

If your objective is performance, and you only need say 80gb, then what is the best performance for your budget?

Here are the options ranked by performance:

You can buy an intel 80gb SSD for about $300. Other ssd's have write issues today.
A 150gb velociraptor for $180.
A WD caviar black 1tb for $100.
or a 80gb basic drive for $35.

When you load your OS and start loading games, they will load first to the fastest(outer) part of the drive.
Objects loaded there will transfer faster than objects loaded later on the inner parts of the drive.
Tests show that the WD caviar black 1tb drive will perform about as well as the velociraptor when using the best part of the drive. The other space is not wasted. You can use it for low performing data such as storage or backups. You can do this by partitioning the drive into a fast 100gb part, and the remainder slower 900gb part.
This process is called "short stroking". Using a 1.5tb or a 2tb drive might be even better.
July 21, 2009 4:47:15 PM

geofelt said:
When you load your OS and start loading games, they will load first to the fastest(outer) part of the drive.
Objects loaded there will transfer faster than objects loaded later on the inner parts of the drive.
Tests show that the WD caviar black 1tb drive will perform about as well as the velociraptor when using the best part of the drive. The other space is not wasted. You can use it for low performing data such as storage or backups. You can do this by partitioning the drive into a fast 100gb part, and the remainder slower 900gb part.
This process is called "short stroking". Using a 1.5tb or a 2tb drive might be even better.

The sequential read/write performance can be similar. A better read/write latency is what 10k drives (and SSDs) really get you though, and that is very, very important.
a b G Storage
July 21, 2009 9:33:08 PM

Actually, if you partition a 1TB drive such that only the outer 100GB is in use, it increases seek performance as well, and if you're willing to sacrifice >90% of the capacity, the seek performance can approach that of the Velociraptor.
a c 415 G Storage
July 21, 2009 11:01:01 PM

cjl said:
Actually, if you partition a 1TB drive such that only the outer 100GB is in use, it increases seek performance as well, and if you're willing to sacrifice >90% of the capacity, the seek performance can approach that of the Velociraptor.

This is something I've been known to recommend to people. But one of the downsides is that partitioning puts a wall up that limits your capacity and if you fill up the partition it's a hassle to deal with.

You can get exactly the same benefits as partitioning if you limit the amount of files you put on the drive and periodically defrag it so that all of the files are in the lowest possible LBNs on the disk. If you do this then the files will still be located on the outermost cylinders, partition or no.

Of course the downside is that you have to actually do the defragging from time to time...
July 22, 2009 9:31:14 AM

The only problem is that i currently have 1 75 gb and 2 150gb 10,000 rpm hard drives, which works great but i'm running out of room.

I need a larger amount of space because i install a lot of games =)
a c 415 G Storage
July 22, 2009 4:37:14 PM

thiisonecrazy said:
The only problem is that i currently have 1 75 gb and 2 150gb 10,000 rpm hard drives, which works great but i'm running out of room. I need a larger amount of space because i install a lot of games =)
What you probably should do is to buy a new, larger drive and move the stuff that's not performance-sensitive to it. For example some of your games probably don't access the disk that much when they're actually running - those would be good candidates to move to a slower drive to free up space on your fast drive.
July 22, 2009 5:48:24 PM

the only problem is that i run all of my games off my hard drives to improve performance
a c 167 G Storage
July 22, 2009 6:30:58 PM

thiisonecrazy said:
The only problem is that i currently have 1 75 gb and 2 150gb 10,000 rpm hard drives, which works great but i'm running out of room.

I need a larger amount of space because i install a lot of games =)


Now, I understand your issue.
You have three small capacity raptors, totalling 374gb, and you are running out of room.
My first choice for best performance would be to replace all three drives with two 300gb velociraptors. Sell your old drives to recoup some of the cost.
You will get a significant jump in space, and even better performance(about 10%).
A lower cost alternative that gives you a big jump in space, and approximately equal performance would be to move your stuff to a WD caviar black 1tb drive.
You can do a head to head comparison of any drives by going to www.storage review.com, and accessing their performance database. I did that for these 4 drives and have copied the results here. The formatting is not as goodas the web display, but if you print it out and draw the lines, you can see the line by line comparison.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SR's Test Gamut v4 - 4 Devices Go Head-To-Head

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SR's Test Gamut v4 - 4 Devices Go Head-To-Head


Device Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB SATA) Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS (1000 GB SATA) Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD no NCQ (150 GB SATA) Western Digital Raptor WD740GD-00FLA1 no TCQ (74 GB SATA)

Low Level Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
Average Random Access Time (Read) 6.8 ms 12.2 ms 8.0 ms 8.1 ms
Average Random Access Time (Write) 7.8 ms 13.2 ms 9.0 ms 9.2 ms
Maximum Transfer Rate 127.0 MB/sec 111.0 MB/sec 88.3 MB/sec 71.8 MB/sec
Minimum Transfer Rate 86.2 MB/sec 60.4 MB/sec 60.2 MB/sec 53.9 MB/sec

Single-User Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
SR Office DriveMark 2006 1111 IO/sec 1136 IO/sec 1010 IO/sec 769 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2006 917 IO/sec 833 IO/sec 775 IO/sec 568 IO/sec
FarCry Performance 1099 IO/sec 935 IO/sec 935 IO/sec 787 IO/sec
The Sims 2 Performance 1163 IO/sec 1053 IO/sec 1010 IO/sec 794 IO/sec
World of Warcraft Performance 840 IO/sec 781 IO/sec 775 IO/sec 671 IO/sec

Multi-User Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
IOMeter File Server - 1 I/O 150 IO/sec 89 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 129 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 2 I/O 170 IO/sec 102 IO/sec 125 IO/sec 128 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 4 I/O 194 IO/sec 116 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 130 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 8 I/O 238 IO/sec 136 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 131 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 16 I/O 280 IO/sec 158 IO/sec 125 IO/sec 130 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 32 I/O 315 IO/sec 179 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 130 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 64 I/O 315 IO/sec 181 IO/sec 148 IO/sec 156 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 128 I/O 313 IO/sec 182 IO/sec 149 IO/sec 156 IO/sec

Environmental Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
Idle Noise 41.4 dB/A @ 3mm 41.0 dB/A @ 3mm 42.5 dB/A @ 3mm 43.2 dB/A @ 3mm
Idle Power Dissipation 4.2 watts 7.3 watts 8.0 watts 7.7 watts
Active Power Dissipation 6.8 watts 10.2 watts 11.8 watts 12.5 watts
5V Maximum Power Dissipation 3.8 watts 3.4 watts 0.0 watts 3.3 watts
12V Maximum Power Dissipation 10.4 watts 17.5 watts 0.0 watts 23.1 watts






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME | REVIEWS | LEADERBOARD | PERFORMANCE DATABASE | REFERENCE GUIDE
COMMUNITY | RELIABILITY SURVEY | READER POLLS
SUPPORT SR! | ABOUT SR | ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright © 1998-2009 StorageReview.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Write: Webmaster

October 26, 2009 1:34:43 AM

geofelt said:
Now, I understand your issue.
You have three small capacity raptors, totalling 374gb, and you are running out of room.
My first choice for best performance would be to replace all three drives with two 300gb velociraptors. Sell your old drives to recoup some of the cost.
You will get a significant jump in space, and even better performance(about 10%).
A lower cost alternative that gives you a big jump in space, and approximately equal performance would be to move your stuff to a WD caviar black 1tb drive.
You can do a head to head comparison of any drives by going to www.storage review.com, and accessing their performance database. I did that for these 4 drives and have copied the results here. The formatting is not as goodas the web display, but if you print it out and draw the lines, you can see the line by line comparison.





This thread is a bit old so I hope I get a reply. The above observations, and comparisons are very interesting. I have one Raptor X AHFD drive. Not being up to snuff on the current crop of hard drives available, I recently bought another Raptor X AHFD drive--used--on Ebay. I then (a bit late) encountered info re the Velociraptors. I realize now that they have been out for some time--I just hadn't been following developments re drives since buying my first raptor--so I am now a bit concerned that I just sunk $$ into somewhat older technology. Anyways, here is what I might do: Set up a Raid 0 with the two raptors X drives, and use them only for my OS, games, and Apps. I have another WD 250 GB drive--7200rpm. I would plan to use that one for storage of my music, pics, etc. so that those files would not be at risk if one of the raptors should die. My machine is multi purpose of course, but was built primarily as a gaming machine. What do you think of my above plan re performance? Also, with the method above called 'short stroking', can this be used in a raid setup? My currently owned Raptor X is usally a bit below 100Gb full. So with raid 0 on 2 150 Gb drives that would only be 1/3 of the 300GB capacity of the array. If I kept my Raid setup to say not more than 125 GB space used total, then are those files always on the first 62.5 GB of each drive--i.e outer edge of the disk(s)? I am not interested in incurring the expense of buying 2 Velociraptors, so that is not really an option. The options are 2 Raptor X in Raid 0, or 1 Velociraptor (if I were to sell the 2 raptor X drives). Also, WD tech claimed in a phone contact that the Velociraptors are giving a 1/3 performance gain over the Rapror x drives I have. If the actual difference in real world terms is more like 10% then I am not as concerned--who is actualy correct? Thanks for any reply.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SR's Test Gamut v4 - 4 Devices Go Head-To-Head

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SR's Test Gamut v4 - 4 Devices Go Head-To-Head


Device Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB SATA) Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS (1000 GB SATA) Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD no NCQ (150 GB SATA) Western Digital Raptor WD740GD-00FLA1 no TCQ (74 GB SATA)

Low Level Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
Average Random Access Time (Read) 6.8 ms 12.2 ms 8.0 ms 8.1 ms
Average Random Access Time (Write) 7.8 ms 13.2 ms 9.0 ms 9.2 ms
Maximum Transfer Rate 127.0 MB/sec 111.0 MB/sec 88.3 MB/sec 71.8 MB/sec
Minimum Transfer Rate 86.2 MB/sec 60.4 MB/sec 60.2 MB/sec 53.9 MB/sec

Single-User Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
SR Office DriveMark 2006 1111 IO/sec 1136 IO/sec 1010 IO/sec 769 IO/sec
SR High-End DriveMark 2006 917 IO/sec 833 IO/sec 775 IO/sec 568 IO/sec
FarCry Performance 1099 IO/sec 935 IO/sec 935 IO/sec 787 IO/sec
The Sims 2 Performance 1163 IO/sec 1053 IO/sec 1010 IO/sec 794 IO/sec
World of Warcraft Performance 840 IO/sec 781 IO/sec 775 IO/sec 671 IO/sec

Multi-User Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
IOMeter File Server - 1 I/O 150 IO/sec 89 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 129 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 2 I/O 170 IO/sec 102 IO/sec 125 IO/sec 128 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 4 I/O 194 IO/sec 116 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 130 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 8 I/O 238 IO/sec 136 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 131 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 16 I/O 280 IO/sec 158 IO/sec 125 IO/sec 130 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 32 I/O 315 IO/sec 179 IO/sec 126 IO/sec 130 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 64 I/O 315 IO/sec 181 IO/sec 148 IO/sec 156 IO/sec
IOMeter File Server - 128 I/O 313 IO/sec 182 IO/sec 149 IO/sec 156 IO/sec

Environmental Suite 4.0 WD3000GLFS WD1001FALS WD1500ADFD-00NLR0 WD740GD
Idle Noise 41.4 dB/A @ 3mm 41.0 dB/A @ 3mm 42.5 dB/A @ 3mm 43.2 dB/A @ 3mm
Idle Power Dissipation 4.2 watts 7.3 watts 8.0 watts 7.7 watts
Active Power Dissipation 6.8 watts 10.2 watts 11.8 watts 12.5 watts
5V Maximum Power Dissipation 3.8 watts 3.4 watts 0.0 watts 3.3 watts
12V Maximum Power Dissipation 10.4 watts 17.5 watts 0.0 watts 23.1 watts






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME | REVIEWS | LEADERBOARD | PERFORMANCE DATABASE | REFERENCE GUIDE
COMMUNITY | RELIABILITY SURVEY | READER POLLS
SUPPORT SR! | ABOUT SR | ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright © 1998-2009 StorageReview.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Write: Webmaster

a b G Storage
October 26, 2009 1:51:00 AM

thiisonecrazy said:
Most of my games i run with no cd fixes, (so that they perform better, as i am not limited by my cd read speeds)

How much of a difference would games running off 10,000 rpm hard drives vs 7,200

does anyone have benchmarks or anything to help show the difference for my situation ?


The Difference would be absolutly nothing. A computer works by making the hard drive find the file the user requests and then loading into RAM, so basically your game runs from your RAM, not the HDD, only thing that will effect is a mere 1 second faster load times :)  Your RAM is what really affects it.
!