• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which 7200RPM Hard Drive scores above 5.9 ?

tweakboy

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Ya Im 5.9 I realize ssd would make it 7.7 or soo.

My question is is there any 7200RPM 3.0Gb/s that scores above 5.9 in W7. Thanks all and GB🙄
 
I see, thanks for the answer Voo. But ya also what is this 3.0Gb/s and 6gb/s SATA drives... Can I use 6.0Gb/s and if I can should I dish out way more money for it. I mean I dont care about large data transfers if that is what is gonna speed up among other things I dont know. How is the WDC Caviar black in speed wise if they didnt cap it could it be a 6.5 score or something. STupid how they capped it, doesnt make sense How about if you stick in a 15k scsi ,, thats as 5.9 too,, thats ridiciollsous service pack 1 should fix that but probably wont.
 
Also my friend, is there a difference between 64mb and 32mb cache, like is the 64mb much faster drive , Get the 64mb or stick with a nice 500GB black edition.. Whats the ms access time on that biaaaa. Thanks buddy and to all members..

Thanks and GB and GG
 
you sure? i coulda swore i saw higher than 5.9 with the p410 smart array with 1GB cache in 50:50 ratios and single SATA-2 2TB 7200rpm
 
Emulex said:
you sure? i coulda swore i saw higher than 5.9 with the p410 smart array with 1GB cache in 50:50 ratios and single SATA-2 2TB 7200rpm
Click to expand...
Afaik they just check random r/w and access times and those drives that don't reach a special treshold are limited to 5.9 - so quite possible that you can "fool" it into thinking your array was an array.

Sure there are other possibilities but a hard cap, but I agree with the overall premise: The difference between 130 and 150mb sequential write may get you lots of points in most benchmarks, but for a OS drive it's just not that interesting.

@tweakboy: In benchmarks you may see some performance improvements, but overall the differences in cache are negligible - that is if you compare 32 to 64mb, but you don't get less in modern drives anyhow.
6gbps SATA is only usefull for current SSDs for sequential r/w - you may get a few MB/s more out of them, but the qualitiy of those controllers is doubtful at best, you may even see a performance decline when compared to the standard Intel controller in scenarios where you're not SATA2 limited.
Imho not worth the money, if you need the SSD for some special tasks where you need fast sequential r/w it could be useful, but for a standard OS drive I wouldn't spend more money just for it.
 
2 WD Black SATA 6.0Gps HDs with 64MB cache in a RAID 0 setup still only gets 5.9. My friend has this exact same setup.

Meanwhile, my Intel 25-V ($100) SSD scores 7.4

My question is do the 10k Raptors also score 5.9?
 
Last edited:
LOL I dislike this W7 benchmark test is they have hard capped it like this to 5.9

There is heaps of difference between some hard drives and they score the same.

.... another microsoft bug,, what a surprise...
 
tweakboy said:
LOL I dislike this W7 benchmark test is they have hard capped it like this to 5.9

There is heaps of difference between some hard drives and they score the same.

.... another microsoft bug,, what a surprise...
Click to expand...

The move from a mechanical hard drive (no matter how fast) to a SSD is absolutely huge. The move from a slower HDD to a faster HDD (Raptor, for example) is minuscule in comparison.

I dislike the 5.9 hard cap, but in the end, it's only the Windows 7 Experience Index. It means virtually nothing about the actual system it's rating unless you're looking for a very, VERY rough baseline. For example, my system's lowest score is graphics at 7.3 - yet my computer would be absolutely blown away by someone with SLI GTX 480s, or an HD 5970. My processor is rated at 7.4, and yet it's currently at the stock 2.8GHz. Someone with a dual socket board and two 4.0GHz+ overclocked processors would easy run circles around it, but they'll only get a maximum of .5 extra points.
 
I have scored lower than a 5.9 with a 5400rpm laptop HDD. But like many have said, who really cares about Microsoft "Experience Index"? It is a flawed system.

I also want to see what a SAS 15K drive will score.
 
zerogear said:
Yes, 10k Raptors only score 5.9 even with RAID 0. I've tried :]
Click to expand...

Not true.

I just built a system with two 300GB rapters in RAID0 and score a 6.2

Raptor.jpg
 
I get a 6.3 for the hard disk on my desktop with Windows 7 Pro 64bit. Using a LSI MegaRAID 8308ELP SAS/SATA card (without BBU) connected to 4 Western Digital 500GB Black HD's RAID 0'd in a Netstore NS160S SAS enclosure. I hope to have the BBU next month and maybe that will go up a bit, as writes under heavy load are still a bit lacking because of the BBU not being present.
 
my desktop 3x 640gb WD 7200rpm RAID 0... 5.9

my laptop.. 2.5" 7200rpm 500gb... 5.9

my Dell Precision R5400 with 2x 146gb 15krpm SAS RAID 0... 5.9

Microsoft seems to enjoy creating useless programming. What's the point of a benchmark if it isn't actually measuring anything? It's like the equivalent of looking at a chart and saying what others scored.

btw.. my laptop with a 16gb class 10 sd card dedicated to ready boost and the 500gb 7200rpm drive scored a 5.8
 
Remember that the scoring isn't too far off. If properly updated the score shows the limitations of a spindle drive. Even an insane amount of spindle drives RAID'd to a high end controller while matching IOPS still induces seek time. They tweaked the scoring system to make room for SSD's and the fact that your spindles can't match even a single SSD to OS functions (randoms). While two 15k RPM drives sound awesome, the seeks are still too high. Having the chance to work between a system with 6x146GB 15kRPM SCSI drives and a single Intel 80GB SSD, it's amazing just how powerful a single SSD is.
 
airdata said:
I installed a seagate ST3300655SS 300gb 15k SAS drive into a dell precision and loaded windows 7 pro.

5.9
Click to expand...

That sucks. Wonder if this is Microsofts way of telling people to go out and buy SSDs? Wonder if Intel paid them off like they do other companies. :twisted:
 
Edrick said:
That sucks. Wonder if this is Microsofts way of telling people to go out and buy SSDs? Wonder if Intel paid them off like they do other companies. :twisted:
Click to expand...

That cheetah only has a random access time of 4.5ms, and a sequential of 3.5ms. Many benches however will still run OS access time to 6.8ms. Their max average transfer rate is 123MB/s, and something like 75MB/s average. While "fast", it's absolutely nothing compared to an SSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top