Samsung SpinPoint F4 320GB 16MB comparable to SSD

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Soulkeeper

Diamond Member
Nov 23, 2001
6,714
143
106
My question though soulkeeper is, is this normal. Is there a problem that its horrible results in normal mode and amazing results in safe mode. When in normal mode is it going at that speed.

SK, what does windows and software have to do with it. Im 0 percent fragmentation. hmmmmm soo whats up with this...

Look at your task manager. ie: cpu usage for the things running in the background.
Also if you reboot it can take several minutes for things to finish starting up in windows (things you don't even see). Just about everything you install in windows adds junk to your startup menu, task bar/systray, background tasks, etc.

I'm not a windows user.
I suggest starting a new thread in the forum section for windows help ...
Ask them these questions.

It's one of those "housecleaning" type situations, you have to take the time to clean up your system and be patient.

Edit: Good luck !
 

computer

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 2000
2,735
2
0
Tweakboy (got your PM), and I read all of this. I'm still not clear on which of the HD's is your main drive. You really can't compare one to the other unless both are just blank drives with no OS on them, or both need to be the boot drive (which isn't going to happen). I can only speak for XP, but when I did all of my benchmarks I told you about, the HD's tested were blank.

Or, the boot drive could be partitioned and you could test the blank partition. I have done that with the same results as the drive being bare.

Both HD's also must be on the same controller type; either Native or 3rd-party. I get totally different results comparing the Native Intel (or AMD) controller to that of a Promise (or JBMicron) 3rd-party controller. In my cases, the Native controller usually gives much higher average rates, where the Promise gives much higher maximum and buffered rates while having lower avg rates.

Those spikes in the HDTune graph could indicate two things: either the HD is defective, or there's something running in the background. Since you said the results are totally different in safe-mode (and better), that would point to the latter. Before any tests are done (as another mentioned), you need to be sure nothing is running in the background. No AV software, no anti-malware software, no print spooler, Image Acquisition, BITS, Auto updates, etc., etc., all of those Services need to be shut down, and the System Tray empty, and any screensaver or monitor-power-down disabled. (And again I don't know if Win7 even has these Services as XP does). But the bottom line is the same and that is only essential Services to the functioning of the OS should be running. CPU usage should be zero before any tests are run.

But if both HD's are on the same controller, and both are bare, and both cables are the same, new, and working perfectly, then something is wrong because the spikey characteristics of the 322GJ should also be shown on the other HD's tests.

The 322GJ also has a 16mb buffer like the WD3200AAKS, I don't know if the WD drive is 1 or 2 platters, but we know the 322GJ is one (halved 667gb) platter so even if the WD is 1 platter it still has much less areal density than that of the 322GJ. So according to those facts, the 322GJ 'should' be faster, and at least according PassMark benchmarks, the 322GJ is MUCH faster: http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

There's also the possibility the 322GJ has some kind of firmware that might require either updated/different drivers than you are using in order for it to see its full potential, or even a different controller type, or the firmware could just be flaky period.

So be sure of those things I mentioned above, be sure those circumstances for testing both drives are identical in every way, then post back what happens after testing again.
 

computer

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 2000
2,735
2
0
Okay Here is CrystalMark ,, is this messed up like hd tune or what ?

crystal.jpg

For comparison, I ran that on my WD740ADFD. This is of course a SATA1 drive, and on a SATA1 Native Intel ICH5 controller (Asus P4C800-E Deluxe), WinXP 32bit. It's partitioned and this is the D partition, 21gb, 6gb is used, and onto which I also moved IE's Temporary Internet Files folder. It gets heavily fragmented easily and I did not defrag:

21nm62w.jpg


As you can see these are faster than the 322GJ except for the one 512k Read 27.73mb Vs 30.64mb area. (Results should be faster after defrag'ing). So you should be getting much faster results than what you're seeing.
 

computer

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 2000
2,735
2
0
I went ahead and ran the test on my Samsung HD103SJ since that would be a more accurate comparison to your HD322GJ. It has two 500gb platters. Again, this is a SATA2 HD on a SATA1 controller (same controller as the WD740ADFD above).

156bnyh.jpg


Quite a bit faster seq read and 512k read, with the Raptor a bit faster in the other areas.

So your 322GJ should be getting considerably faster results than that screenshot above since you're on a SATA2 controller.
 
Last edited:

sub.mesa

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
611
0
0
His lower scores are due to background I/O. You can see that in CrystalDiskMark as C-drive letter; while you have the drive tested as D or E drive. Likely no background programs would be using the D or E drive; only C.

So the trick in benchmarking is making sure the device is not used for normal I/O usage during the benchmark. Rebooting in safe mode can do that.

You can also see how tiny I/O requests can castrate your performance. That is why SSD for the system disk generally is a good idea. However as an alternative, one 320GB one platter totally dedicated to the system drive would do the trick; use other HDDs for storage of casual data.

Separating user data from system data would also be recommended. For example some people move the My Documents and profile folders to another physical disk. If HDDs have a dedicated task, they would minimize the seeking they would need to do. If you give HDDs combined tasks; then all the seeking would mean a slow system.
 

computer

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 2000
2,735
2
0
Yeah I notice now his CrystalDiskMark is on the C drive. HDTune it doesn't say but I expect the same. I can run benchmarks on my C drive with no ill effect if there's nothing at all running in the BG, but Win7 may be different in that regard.

"Tweakboy", I found this HDTune screenshot of an HD322GJ, I don't remember from where nor the PC setup, but it should give you somewhat of an idea on about what you should see.

dghw0g.jpg
 

alaricljs

Golden Member
May 11, 2005
1,221
1
76
If you have booted windows from the disk that you are then testing you will run into what's called contention. This is when other running programs are accessing the disk at the same time you are trying to test it. Windows paging, indexing service and a whole host of 3rd party software that you may not remember having start on boot/login.

As sub.mesa said, you need to test the drive without anything else accessing it, and a really good repeatable way to do that is a boot CD with the right test material. Then you can test BOTH your drives under identical conditions and have a real comparison.
 

FishAk

Senior member
Jun 13, 2010
987
0
0
But you already know the disk is good, from booting it in safe mode, so what about the differences that are important to you, like boot time, and game level changes you talked about before? Can you notice a difference in real world stuff?
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
Yes fishAk I notice a difference in real world apps. I mean it takes its time,, but its pretty snappy,, DAW was good,, game loads were great I noticed a difference with MASS 2 and MAFIA II.

oK Thanks all I guess its a closed subject. Once again this is my hdtune in safe mode for anyone wanted to compare.

safemode.jpg
 

FishAk

Senior member
Jun 13, 2010
987
0
0
Hold on a second! Closed you say?

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.

Aren't you going to let us know the real world difference between the drives with some numbers?
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
Ok real world performance working with DAW Sonar 8.5 Producer Edition many synths and plugins. 17 synths and 30 plugins. It loads up faster I can tell, loading of samples is faster by a few seconds.

I loaded up samples that are like 300MB and 500MB and 200MB varies, whatever I was doing Ive used this software enough years to know it was faster at bringing up the sound.If I had to wait 5 seconds for sound to come up. Now I wait 2 to 3 seconds. Things are snappier definitely.

As for OS usage. I mean it was already fast soo I notice less difference. However I did notice when I went to my pictures,, extra large thumbnails.. the thumbnails loaded faster and showed pic faster. Then using maxview,, a picture thats 1mb would take 0.5 to 1 second to max view it zoom in, Now that same picture takes 0 seconds to maximize.

Game play soo far only MASS 2 and Mafia II and its like there is a little turbo booster now when they load maps and scenes. Its snappier for sure.

Windows boot up time is faster but problem is with all these latest updates I dont know whates going on cuz I used to boot up in 55 seconds on other wdc drive,, then I tried on it again and it takes 105 seconds. Soo when I tested this drive same thing. My windows is lagging at the welcome screen a lot,,, if things were proper Im sure that 55 seconds would shave down to about 40 seconds at least. Oh also its super quiete I cant hear it barely. Also its 5c cooler then other drives.
Surfing the net is fast and you tube videos instant. its snappy is a great word to use. Here is the safe mode hd tune again for you all to compare. Lots of thanks to you all especially Sub Mesa. thanks budds love yall!!. That is tweakboys review soo far my OCN members cheers :)

safemode.jpg
 
Last edited:

trungma

Senior member
Jul 1, 2001
466
36
91
Those HDD Tune numbers don't make any sense. Am I missing something here? Why are your values ridiculously high even compared to top of the line SSDs?
 

Voo

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2009
1,684
0
76
Those HDD Tune numbers don't make any sense. Am I missing something here? Why are your values ridiculously high even compared to top of the line SSDs?
Yeah, a burst rate of 600mb/s is unheard of for a single HDD.. and isn't that samsung a SATA2 drive?
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
Yes Voo its SATA II of course and it came out in June. Ya hd tune is odd. In normal mode its horrible and dips in safe mode it gives what you see. and Thanks soulkeeper, Im happy camper now. hehe
 
Last edited:

Voo

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2009
1,684
0
76
:( looks like it's not so great in random access. isn't this strange since it's a single platter and only uses half of it?
Only one side.. doesn't change much for random access.

@tweakboy: 3.4ms avg. random access time is physically impossible (think about it, 7200rpm are the constraining factor here) and all your other results are bogus so probably the random access time as well...
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
So the results are bogus Voo. that is exactly what I want to know here.

I just want to know if my drive is performing as advertised. I could care less what my benchmark is I want to know if the drive is ok and I should have no worries, Im getting the speed out of the drive that was intended. Thats all.

If everything is ok with drive and also software wise, thats all I care about. Not having to RMA :( ya know.

Sub Mesa told me its ok and normal I trust him.

hmm
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
JimIII its practically free it costs so little. TO let you you know they only come in OEM but packaged very nicely brand new. There is no box for them.... but ya it was inside 3 diff packaging cases, like a brown protection thing inside in plastic like its brand new from a retail box open pplastic and there she shines... Also note its 4 to 5c degrees cooler then my other drives. I can hear it if its thrashing but its not bothersome. Power it takes up like 5watts or 7 watts peak
 

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2010
9,517
2
81
www.hammiestudios.com
Ok problem!!!!!!! PROBLEM!!!!!!

I ran a diskmark passmark test and I get 756 , while in techreview screenshot shows it gets 934 points.

This program cant be run in safe mode soo I just waited until no drive activity and ran the test.. Whats up Im 200 points short of what IM supposed to get based on a review of drive. Do I need to use a AHCI driver or something I dont know, do I have to install some drivers or do something. help appreciated,, sub mesa I need you.
 
Last edited:

computer

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 2000
2,735
2
0
Ok problem!!!!!!! PROBLEM!!!!!!

I ran a diskmark passmark test and I get 756 , while in techreview screenshot shows it gets 934 points.

This program cant be run in safe mode soo I just waited until no drive activity and ran the test.. Whats up Im 200 points short of what IM supposed to get based on a review of drive. Do I need to use a AHCI driver or something I dont know, do I have to install some drivers or do something. help appreciated,, sub mesa I need you.
(The HD322GJ got a 981:
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/hdd_lookup.php?cpu=SAMSUNG+HD322GJ
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html)

Something odd is going on with your OS. ;) Safe mode gives astronomical impossible numbers, and normal mode gives choked numbers.

I can't run PassMark any longer because it timed out, but when I ran it on the HD103SJ, WD6401AALS, and WD740ADFD, I got numbers about the same or even HIGHER than what their website shows. What's even more astonishing about that, is again, those first two HD's are SATA300 and I got those numbers on a SATA150 controller. For example, WD6401AALS, 633 at their website and I got a 623. WD740ADFD, theirs is 525 and I got 602.

I'd love to be able to run it on my WD1500HLFS but it won't run even after reinstalling, and trying a newer version (obviously registry tags preventing it).

Did you ever look at your Task Manager and see what you have running in the background? Disable Services? Did you ever try testing the drive when it was not the OS drive? Like I said, until you do that you won't really know what's going on. But like I and some others have said, it appears to be something running in the BG that's accessing (choking) the drive. But if you get typical results on other HD's that are bare, then that would seem to possibly indicate less about something 'generally' running in the BG per say, and more so about something specifically accessing the 322GJ because it's the boot drive (but of course also running in the BG).

Did you get these same strange results when testing other HD's as the OS drive? If so, then it's your OS. If not, then it's the 322GJ.

Did you try the 322GJ on another controller? If it's on the Native, try the 3rd-party, or vice-versa. I don't recommend it, but at least on my mobo I was able to move the main boot HD back and forth from Native to 3rd-party and it would still work (did that during testing phases).

Before hooking up any drive as your main drive, you should always first benchmark the hell out of it. ;) That way you can definitively know how it's working and if it's going to possibly fail sooner than later.

What's troubling to me, is I wonder if anyone else has noticed this on Win7, and if this is a problem with boot drives on Win7--such as Win7 choking the OS drives as a function (either bug or intentional) of the OS.
 
Last edited: