Samsung SpinPoint F4 320GB 16MB comparable to SSD

[bunnyfubbles]

Why would this be more reliable than a WD, Hitachi or Seagate drive?

I'm assuming because its a single platter single head and thus has less moving parts. He's not necessarily implying the Samsung brand is more reliable, just this particular drive (although I'm pretty sure Samsung has one of the better reliability reputations at the moment)

 

[sub.mesa]

Why would this be more reliable than a WD, Hitachi or Seagate drive?

Reliability is a topic of hot debate.

I can only state my own understanding and perspectives; you would have to judge them yourself according to your own experience and analysis.

But the biggest problem with HDDs is their mechanical nature; it tends to break. Mechanical motion causes wear and unpredictable lifetime. The more mechanical components, the more components you have that can break. The more components the higher the power consumption and thus more heat. That is why single platter 7200rpm disks have quite acceptable heat generation; but multi-platter 7200rpm disks are rather hot.

Temperature is also often misunderstood. It is not very bad for a HDD to be continuously at a high temperature like 48 degrees. What i believe is particularly devasting to a mechanical drive is temperature changes that would cause the metal in the HDD to contract and expand. Even worse, if you put a fan on one side you could create an imbalance in temperature; one side would be cooler than the other. That means that metal does not expand uniformly. It is totally unclear what this does with drive reliability, but i believe many disks die due ultimately due to these temperature changes.

That's why i think 5400rpm drives have an underrated advantage; they do not require cooling and as such will heat up very uniformly and calmly. Due to their lower power consumption only minimal natural airflow is needed for heat dissipation. This may ultimately also increase reliability.

Simply said, the better environment you expose your disks to, the less chance a mechanical failure fails the drive. But some failures cannot be prevented even with good care, and as such HDDs are too unreliable for non-redundant data storage. As such, the little differences between HDD vendors are not very relevant i think. More relevant is how good the user's backup plan is; that really determines the 'reliability of your files' if you will.

As always, your experience may vary.

 

[Voo]

I agree with sub.mesa, although I don't see any reason to cool HDDs directly at all. So far even in the most racked up case I had, the air flow was good enough to keep all drives (including 4 platter 2tb 7.2k rpm drives) at reasonable temperatures and the google study shows that drives are more reliable if they don't get too cold.

More components are imho just mean more points where it can break which obviously increases the overall failure rate, but I'm not sure if temperature has much to do with it.. at least according to the google study - too bad that that's more or less the only large, reliable, real world data we've got for arguing about that.
Oh I'd kill for a non-anonymized current version of that.

 

[computer]

Im going to get the Samsung SpinPoint F4 320GB drive and I will compare it to my current WDC 320GB drive which does 88mb/s I will be writing a tweakboy review of this drive and its speed. Im getting OEM though, is that bad ? Or as long as its packaged well ?

This drive probably isn't even available as retail, so they're all going to be OEM. It may not ever be retail, I don't recall seeing any Samsung HD's retail boxed.

42.99 at ChiefValue

Thanks for mentioning that, their site never even showed up in searches when I was looking for info on it and that's the best price. It's even cheaper than their sister company NewEgg. (~$50 shipped).

And, thanks for starting this thread. A lot of good useful info in it. 😉

 

[computer]

Just FYI, to those of you considering and talking about SSD's, you should read info such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive#Disadvantages

Still not ready for prime-time, personally I just can't trust my data to something that doesn't have proven long-term reliability. Theoretically they are more reliable, but that hasn't transferred over to the reality of actual use just yet. When it does and when I start seeing reviews and data after 5 years or so, I'll be getting one if the info is good.

At the time when I bought my HD103SJ, I did a lot of review searching and Samsung had the fewest negative reviews regarding failures.

Regarding heat, most people don't realize it and never think to check, but usually the hottest part of a HD is its underside. I always check heat on any HD and the top and sides may be perfectly ok, just warm. But often when I touch the bottom PCB area the chips can actually burn you they're so hot. I've ended up having to put heatsinks on hot chips (usually Maxtor IDE). While the chips sometimes technically still may be within thermal spec, I just don't like that kind of heat, and it can't be good for the PCB or traces. I've seen a lot of dry solder connections and warped PCB's due to excessive heat, expansion & contraction in an area.

I didn't need to do that on my WD740xx Raptor drives nor the HD103SJ. I also recently tested a WD6401AALS and its chips didn't get hot. Maybe that's becoming a thing of the past but I still always check.

 

[computer]

Another thing regarding speed, check out where the HD322GJ is listed here: http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.php?cpu=SAMSUNG+HD322GJ

Now look at it on the page that includes all of the SSD's tested, it appears to be the first conventional HD listed and even above numerous SSD's. http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

And for only $43.

 

[FishAk]

Paper can burn, so it's still not ready for prime-time, personally I just can't trust my data to something that doesn't have proven long-term reliability, so I will continue to write on stone.

Fixed

The only valid disadvantage in the Wikipedia link is price. All others have been mitigated.

As sub.mesa pointed out above, no drive is a reliable form of data storage, and only an adequate backup system can keep data safe.

At this time, an SSD is not about storing data. It's all about speed and access time, which makes a computer respond much faster than it can with an HDD.

That Samsung 320Gb drive you point out is impressive. By using only half of a 640Gb disk, it needs only one head, and it transfers sequential files very fast. Looking at an ATTO chart, speed doesn't start to drop till files are about 8K, and it's still transferring at about 23Mb/s@ 0.5K. Where it gets hit, and why it can't compete with an SSD for an OS is access time. Random access time of the HD322GJ is almost 14ms, while a good SSD is 0.1 to 0.06ms.

TestFreaks F4 320 Review

 

[computer]

Originally Posted by computer

Paper can burn, so it's still not ready for prime-time,.......

😕 "Paper can burn"? That's not my quote.

Fixed

The only valid disadvantage in the Wikipedia link is price. All others have been mitigated.

Well that's good to know, but on XP and Vista, or just Win7?

As sub.mesa pointed out above, no drive is a reliable form of data storage, and only an adequate backup system can keep data safe.

Of course we all know that, but why gamble valuable data, and waste your time on potential restorations, with an unproven technology?

At this time, an SSD is not about storing data. It's all about speed and access time, which makes a computer respond much faster than it can with an HDD.

😕 Not about storing data?? Any storage device is about storing data first and foremost, otherwise if it cannot do that reliably it's of little use, other than possibly a PageFile drive(?) or bragging rights. I agree they are "all the rage now due to their speeds", but before they can be considered as a usable viable practical storage device their reliability must be proven.....at least to me it does.

......Random access time of the HD322GJ is almost 14ms, while a good SSD is 0.1 to 0.06ms.

I've read at some forums that regardless of how good the 322GJ may bench, a VelociRaptor may be faster for actual typical PC use due to its access times. I'd really like to know if that really is the case. I need to look again at some PCmark tests for its "Application Loading", "XP startup" and "General HDD usage" to see how they compare to the Raptors.

TestFreaks F4 320 Review

Good link.

 

[FishAk]

Not about storing data?? Any storage device is about storing data first and foremost, otherwise if it cannot do that reliably it's of little use, other than possibly a PageFile drive(?) or bragging rights.

I'm afraid you are missing the point of an SSD as it currently relates to a system. Because there is almost no access time to read small files, the random read of an SSD is many times faster than any HDD. An operating system and programs, require the reading of many small files in a random nature. These two facts combined make a system much more responsive when the OS and programs reside on an SSD. Storing other data on an SSD gives only a small advantage over a HDD.

Using an SSD is about using a faster machine, and not about bragging, much the same way that writing on paper is much faster than writing on stone. Stone is more durable, and cheaper, but paper has a huge performance advantage. You don't write on paper so you can brag about it, you do it because of the huge performance advantage that you can feel.

 

[computer]

I'm afraid you are missing the point of an SSD as it currently relates to a system. Because there is almost no access time to read small files, the random read of an SSD is many times faster than any HDD. An operating system and programs, require the reading of many small files in a random nature. These two facts combined make a system much more responsive when the OS and programs reside on an SSD. Storing other data on an SSD gives only a small advantage over a HDD.

No, I understand what you're saying and like I said I agree; there's no dispute they are faster. But you're missing my point in saying their reliability has not been proven, they have no track record yet.

Using an SSD is about using a faster machine, and not about bragging, much the same way that writing on paper is much faster than writing on stone. Stone is more durable, and cheaper, but paper has a huge performance advantage. You don't write on paper so you can brag about it, you do it because of the huge performance advantage that you can feel.

Sure, but what good is that "faster machine" when your data is lost? In fact, what you said makes sense: "paper can burn" (and easily folded, mutilated, etc.), which is why in this analogy paper is not reliable. What good is the speed and performance advantage of your "paper" when it won't last. (And I still don't understand why you put that my quote).

I just got through searching again and I still can't find any data on long term reliability (esp from independent testing), which again, is my point. 😉 I only see forum threads such as this where others are concerned as I am. http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57904

I also found that their performance gets worse over time, unless you get an SSD that supports TRIM, and Win7 is the only OS that supports TRIM, and that is still not an exact reliable science yet. Even after performance degradation they are still faster than HD's, it's the fact that this can even happen is what's concerning.

What about this: "Well that's good to know, but on XP and Vista, or just Win7?"

 

[Voo]

I just got through searching again and I still can't find any data on long term reliability (esp from independent testing), which again, is my point. 😉

Umn and which studies for long-term reliability of HDDs do exist? That's the whole problem: NO current technology is reliable enough to not backup data anyways, so you've got to take the same precautions in either way.
Also flash is inherently safer than platters and mechanical parts (i.e. degradation over time, you don't lose your data from one day to the other), it all depends on the used controller and at least the Intel one can be said to be rather reliable - since there aren't any serious studies about reliability for either HDDs nor SSDs (after all the reason we always end up arguing about google search results, forum posts or newegg reviews) that's all we can say about that..


And the performance degradation has been explained many times here and otherwhere, Win7 is not the only OS with TRIM and you can schedule manual TRIM on older MS OSes which while not exactly the same isn't much worse.

 

[FishAk]

(And I still don't understand why you put that my quote).

This is why I wrote "Fixed", as it was not a true and complete quote, but rather a modification to point out the humor of the original.

you're missing my point in saying their reliability has not been proven

Reliability is irrelevant. There is no data storage type that is completely reliable. With regard to HDDs, this has been proven many times, and in many ways. The only way to make sure you don't loose data is with a reliable backup system. SSDs may eventually prove to be more reliable than a HDD, but that in itself would not make them reliable.

It is a simple procedure to take a snapshot of your OS, and to restore that image in the event of a drive failure, corruption, theft, or other loss. Anyone relying on any single data storage medium (including stone, as it can be crushed, or stolen) will experience data loss, given sufficient time.

Win7 is the only OS that supports TRIM

TRIM is supported by W7, Windows Server, Linux, OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, and OS X. EDIT: OS X does not support TRIM at this time (my bad)

What about this: "Well that's good to know, but on XP and Vista, or just Win7?"

It is true that without TRIM support, an SSD's performance can degrade over time. The better SSD controlers have a garbage collection system to mitigate this problem, and reserving unused space on the drive helps this process. Additionally, data can be moved off an SSD, allowing it to be erased and brought back to it's new state. It's not perfect, but using XP or Vista isn't perfect either, and anyone clinging to those operating systems is used to putting up with inconveniences. Still, properly used, an SSD will greatly speed up even those machines.

 

[computer]

Umn and which studies for long-term reliability of HDDs do exist?

Plenty--user reviews going back many years. Not only from individual users but large corp's. That does not yet exist for SSD's, which again IS MY ONLY POINT.

That's the whole problem: NO current technology is reliable enough to not backup data anyways, so you've got to take the same precautions in either way.
Also flash is inherently safer than platters and mechanical parts (i.e. degradation over time, you don't lose your data from one day to the other),

Yes, theoretically.

That's beside the point that a 100% fail-safe storage medium doesn't exist. If someone wants to trust their PC's and their data on a technology that is LESS reliable and unproven than that of HD's, that's their own risk and prerogative.

And the performance degradation has been explained many times here and otherwhere, Win7 is not the only OS with TRIM and you can schedule manual TRIM on older MS OSes which while not exactly the same isn't much worse.

(Links on the performance degradation? I'd like to read more). It would seem it's only mainstream Windows OS (Server being the other?).

 

[FishAk]

"paper can burn" (and easily folded, mutilated, etc.), which is why in this analogy paper is not reliable.

I re-read your earlier post, and I think you may not have read my entire misquote, causing you to miss the humor. Read it again, and you will see I am relating paper to stone, as an SSD relates to a HDD.

Your premise was that although SSDs are faster, they aren't as reliable as HDDs. The analogy is valid since, although paper is faster than stone, it is not as durable.

 

[computer]

Reliability is irrelevant.

😱 WTF?? Perhaps to you.

There is no data storage type that is completely reliable. With regard to HDDs, this has been proven many times, and in many ways.

No one is disputing that, I AGREE. For the last time, you're totally missing the point: Just because HD's are not 100% totally reliable cannot justify going to EVEN LESS reliable method.

The only way to make sure you don't loose data is with a reliable backup system.

Yes, I AGREE. At least with a HD, and one that I've benchmarked excessively over weeks and in which I am confident, I only need to backup data on it maybe weekly or monthly. However with an SSD, I would have to backup DAILY, something I and I believe most others are not willing to feel like you have to do. That's just something that's up to the individual if they think daily backups and the hassle of failure is worth the performance increase.

SSDs may eventually prove to be more reliable than a HDD, but that in itself would not make them reliable.

It does not appear that way so far, but in the future that probably WILL be the case, because as I've been saying theoretically it is more reliable due to no moving parts. And if so, that is when I will confidently get one.

 

[computer]

I re-read your earlier post, and I think you may not have read my entire misquote, causing you to miss the humor. Read it again, and you will see I am relating paper to stone, as an SSD relates to a HDD.

I gotcha. 😉

 

[FishAk]

Just because HD's are not 100% totally reliable cannot justify going to EVEN LESS reliable method.

You're premise is invalid. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because SSDs have not been proven to be more reliable than HDDs over time, does not mean that they are not. They may very well be more reliable, and it is possible- even likely- that time will bear this out. They certainly have the potential, especially given the proven poor reliability of HDDs, mostly due to moving parts, and the lack of moving parts in an SSD.

If you back up your data only weekly or monthly, you are risking data loss. Longer periods are OK and even prefered for off-site backups, (mistakenly deleted data can be recovered from a drive that the deletion hasn't been propagated to) but daily, or even hourly backups should be performed by anyone who wishes to reduce the chance of loss. Backups can be set to run automatically, and only changed data need be dealt with.

It has not been shown that SSDs are unreliable. However, even if they were proven to be, they would still be preferred for the OS due to speed, and the ease with which one can recover from a failure. This is what makes reliability irrelevant. Your system memory looses all data every time you shut down your system. Still you use the memory, simply because of the speed, knowing full well that it will not retain data.

 

[jjmIII]

TestFreaks F4 320 Review

Wish they would test against WD Blacks, and Samsung F3 1TB....odd mix they compare against.

42.99 at ChiefValue

....and FREE shipping, while Newegg is $7.28 shipping here

 

[Voo]

Plenty--user reviews going back many years. Not only from individual users but large corp's. That does not yet exist for SSD's, which again IS MY ONLY POINT.

I don't think you're saying that user reviews from newegg or other vendors are the same as a reliable, independent, long term study? Even a basic statistics course would show where that premise falls apart.
Just consider how many people post years after their purchase that the drive bricked - 0.1%? Probably less.

So those reviews at best can show the short term reliability of drives. So let's just compare the Intel x25 g2 80gb drive at newegg to the 7200.12er barracuda. I think it's fair to assume that most 1-2 star reviews are for bricked drives (a short glance over those post seems to validate that)

Let's just count every 1 and 2 star reviews
Intel x25-g2 80gb (link)
303 reviews
1 star: 5
2 star: 4
total: 2.97%

Seagate 7200.12 (link)
241 reviews
1 star: 49
2 star: 13
total: 25.73%

Okay, maybe better take a spinpoint drive (link)
765 reviews
1 star: 73
2 star: 29
total: 13.3%

Hey ok maybe Samsung isn't that great either, let's take one of our favorites: WD blacks!
link
2633 reviews
1 star: 218
2 star: 65
total: 10.75%

Um user reviews don't seem like a great way to prove your point I fear. Hard drives may be much longer around than SSDs, but that doesn't make them any more reliable.. not that newegg reviews are a great way to judge reliability at all. Actually the only large, independent, real life study I know of was from google and they anonymized their results so that we cannot make any statements of the reliability of different HDD manufacterers either.

 

[Blain]

I take user reviews from Newegg, etc only as a last resort.
Few are informative, many are a joke as far as item review and some don't even own the product they are commenting on.

 

[tweakboy]

Fixed

The only valid disadvantage in the Wikipedia link is price. All others have been mitigated.

As sub.mesa pointed out above, no drive is a reliable form of data storage, and only an adequate backup system can keep data safe.

At this time, an SSD is not about storing data. It's all about speed and access time, which makes a computer respond much faster than it can with an HDD.

That Samsung 320Gb drive you point out is impressive. By using only half of a 640Gb disk, it needs only one head, and it transfers sequential files very fast. Looking at an ATTO chart, speed doesn't start to drop till files are about 8K, and it's still transferring at about 23Mb/s@ 0.5K. Where it gets hit, and why it can't compete with an SSD for an OS is access time. Random access time of the HD322GJ is almost 14ms, while a good SSD is 0.1 to 0.06ms.

TestFreaks F4 320 Review

"Actually the seek time is 8.7MS not 14ms, and latency is 4.7ms"

 

[FishAk]

"Actually the seek time is 8.7MS not 14ms, and latency is 4.7ms"

If you look at the HD Tune chart in the TestFreaks review, (the little yellow dots) you will see the minimum access time is about 4ms, the max is about a quarter of a second, and the mean is 13.7ms. (I rounded to 14)

This is the whole reason a spindle drive can't compete with an SSD. Take painting a fence for example. The SSD has the paint bucket with him at the fence, however, the HDD leaves his paint bucket in the garage, and must go to the garage each time he needs to dip his paintbrush.

 

[tweakboy]

Very nice assessment FishAk.

Anyhow my review will be forthcoming. I will test

time to place image on F4 from LaCie eSATA external which also uses Samsung.

time it takes for Windows to load. "I download a 30 day trial app called Winbootinfo. It's amazing tells you how long it takes for each thing to load and it gives you final results, I got 55 seconds boot time with WDC 320GB. I will see how fast I boot into winblowz now.

I will use my DAW and see how it is loading huge samples etc.

I will play games MASS 2 and MAFIA 2 and see the loading times for levels.

I will run my own hd tune and post a screenshot.

 

[FishAk]

I would guess a significant improvement on the game levels, but will be surprised at a big difference in your OS loadup.

 

[tweakboy]

Thanks for the logic FishAk, your a smart guy I like the paint of bucket thingie.

Anyhow soon well see,, lol Im waiting for the wheels on the big brown bus to go round and round ring my bell. Then I will take out my cage replace the 80GB drive, put it back in, connect, then put image on F4 and Im ready to review !