Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7200RPM vs 5400RPM

Last response: in Storage
Share
February 14, 2013 3:43:59 PM

Hey guys, this seems quite strange to me. I compared HDD CrystalMark benchmarks with my friend. I have a WD Caviar Black 500GB 7200RPM and he has a SAMSUNG (Seagate) EcoGreen F4 2TB 5400RPM and here are the results:

WD Caviar Black

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.2 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 102.892 MB/s
Sequential Write : 100.515 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 34.374 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 49.736 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.416 MB/s [ 101.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.861 MB/s [ 210.2 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.922 MB/s [ 225.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.859 MB/s [ 209.7 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [C: 46.8% (218.0/465.7 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2013/02/14 17:14:32
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

SAMSUNG EcoGreen F4

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.2 Shizuku Edition x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 123.857 MB/s
Sequential Write : 120.706 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 33.733 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 47.508 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.367 MB/s [ 89.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.931 MB/s [ 227.3 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.688 MB/s [ 168.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.960 MB/s [ 234.4 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [D: 53.5% (473.8/886.4 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2013/02/14 17:15:01
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

Could someone please explain why he has better speeds even though the hard drive is supposed to be eco performance and is 5400RPM.

More about : 7200rpm 5400rpm

a c 288 G Storage
February 14, 2013 7:28:47 PM

The Samsung drive has a "667GB Formatted Capacity Per Disk" and is an Advanced Format model:

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1537495.pdf

Your WD drive appears to have 2 platters and therefore a lower data density.

Advanced Format drives can perform about 10% faster than their equivalent non-AF versions because they can fit 10% more data per track using the same physical components.

In short, the performance is a trade-off between RPM and data density. Your friend gains more from increased data density than what he loses to you in RPM.
February 14, 2013 7:48:51 PM

Yep^, rpm doesnt mean everything. Its like buying a cpu based solely on its clock speed
!