Is My i7 920 System Being Bottlenecked By HDD

So with the i7 CPU and 6Gb of DDR3 1600 ram, is the system being bottlenecked by a 16mb cache HDD. the CPU never passes 60% load while video encoding. Even with priority set to max.

Will going to a VelociRaptor HDD or 32mb cache HDD allow me to imrove load past 60%?
22 answers Last reply
More about system bottlenecked
  1. No
  2. The largest bottleneck of a PC today is the hard drive. Faster hard drives and even fast SSDs are not noticeably faster than an average hard drive. Those who tell you differently are wrong, and reviews and benchmarks that try to tell you there is a difference are also wrong. Take my word for it, there is NO solution to the HDD bottleneck regardless of whether you can afford RAID 0 SSDs, there is no real world difference to speak of.
  3. Google "ACARD ANS-9010"

    search youtube.com for "Gigabyte i-RAM" and i-RAM RAID"


    MRFS
  4. Yeah I've seen that, but I don't see what is so special. I get 90% those speeds with 1 motherboard.... and 1 HDD....

    Again my point is that there is are not any mainstream solutions to the HDD bottleneck. Benchmarks are useless for everything except in games so I really don't care how amazing SSD scores are, I've tried them and sent them back because I expected a difference and got none.
  5. The_Blood_Raven said:
    The largest bottleneck of a PC today is the hard drive. Faster hard drives and even fast SSDs are not noticeably faster than an average hard drive. Those who tell you differently are wrong, and reviews and benchmarks that try to tell you there is a difference are also wrong. Take my word for it, there is NO solution to the HDD bottleneck regardless of whether you can afford RAID 0 SSDs, there is no real world difference to speak of.


    Clearly you've never used a fast SSD.

    It is massively ahead of a standard hard drive. In every way. For that matter, the Velociraptor is an improvement as well, though not nearly as dramatic.
  6. Yes I have actually, but the difference wasn't overly noticeable and it definitely wasn't worth the price. The only time I noticed it was when I moving files and the slight overall increase in responsiveness. After $700 spent I should have gotten a decent increase in performance, but I didn't. Velociraptors are totally useless in anything other than benchmarks, WD black edition hard drives perform close to them for cheap.
  7. I decided to install Vista Ultimate 64 on two different HDD. One was a Seagate 1Tb 32 Mb Cache and the other was a WD Caviar Green 500Gb with 16Mb Cache.

    Running Nero 7 on the WD Hard Drive, converting a 700Mb Avi to DVD took 13 minutes, average CPU load was around 60%

    On the Seagate, the exact same task took over 40 minutes. Average CPU load was approx 45%.

    So can anyone explain why the Seagate performed so poorly? Is it the larger capacity, cache or are they just bad?
  8. Did you convert the file from the same HDD as you were running vista and nero on for both times?
  9. nsimo86 said:
    Did you convert the file from the same HDD as you were running vista and nero on for both times?


    Affirmative, I had the avi file on an external HDD that I copied to the WD and the Seagate.
  10. Are both drives hooked up via SATA? I've heard the seagates are having a high failure rate but I dont know about performance being bad.

    I would suggest defragging the seagate and trying it again.
  11. No there should not be that much of a difference, something is wrong and since one is a Seagate drive I would have it checked.
  12. nsimo86 said:
    Are both drives hooked up via SATA? I've heard the seagates are having a high failure rate but I dont know about performance being bad.

    I would suggest defragging the seagate and trying it again.


    Yes, both were connected via Sata.

    You're not kidding about Seagates. I have 4 collect dust. 2 make metal to metal grinding noise and 2 won't boot up.

    I'm returning it today.

    nsimo86 said:
    Are both drives hooked up via SATA? I've heard the seagates are having a high failure rate but I dont know about performance being bad.

    I would suggest defragging the seagate and trying it again.



    I wonder if this has anything to do with it:

    http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
  13. My Seagate required a fiddle with a jumper to put it at SATA 2 speeds. Otherwise it runs at half speed.
  14. http://www.ebuyer.com/product/130826/show_product_reviews

    3rd post down, thats my drive...prolly same for all Seagates.
  15. Here's an interesting update, I decided to install the Cool Master V-8 and the time it took for Nero to encode the file was unchanged on the WD.

    However, the time on the Seagate was reduced from 40 min to 16 minutes. Still slower than the WD.

    So was the CPU running hotter on the Seagate which caused the CPU to slow down?
  16. No purely coincidental assuming that you were right in your previous post that the CPU was running at a lower % which is why it took longer.
  17. So I ended up return the Seagate for a velociraptor because Seagate hasn't even released a firmware update yet for all the problems that are happening with their drives.

    There's a crap load of people who have Seagate's who are still waiting for an update so they can unlock it. Some of them were voicing their anger on Seagate's forum and mods were deleting their posts within minutes of appearing.

    Don't think I'm ever buying a Seagate again. So many have died on me over the years. And if they still work, they make a metal grinding sound.


    Ran the same test using the V-raptor and it shaved close to 45 seconds off the Cavair Green HDD time and over 4 minutes off the Seagate time.
  18. OK, now I am seriously confused.

    I was just able to reduce the encoding time to just 11 minutes while Overclocking the i7 to 3.0GHz.

    How is this possible if the HDD is the bottleneck?
  19. Check your drive's average write MB/s speed in a benchmark. Then, see how long it takes to encode a file. If a 4.5GB DVD takes 10 minutes to encode then do a little math to see the average MB/s tranfer that you need. Let's say the HD can write 60MB/S.
    (4.5GB/(10min*60sec))=7,500,000. If my model is correct, then the average speed is 7.5MB/sec. If it was done in half the time it would be 15MB/sec. This may be generalized, but you get the point of what I'm trying to say. You don't see a big problem in the transfer rate. The biggest problem is the DVD Drive reading the data from my experiences.
  20. esox said:
    OK, now I am seriously confused.

    I was just able to reduce the encoding time to just 11 minutes while Overclocking the i7 to 3.0GHz.

    How is this possible if the HDD is the bottleneck?


    The problem is and always was that the HDD was not bottlenecking your system. Yes the HDD is still the biggest bottleneck when it comes to installing or retrieving data.

    But it seems that overall it was just luck of the draw.

    I have yet to have a bad experience with Seagate. I have had bad Maxtor/WD drives though. I have 2 SATA I Seagate HDDs in RAID 0 that are 6 years old and still kicking. I currently have 2 7200.11s in RAID 0 that are over a year old. But I guess some people have problems others may not.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i7 Hard Drives