Overclock.net banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey all

Just wondering how this drive performs? I couldn't find a comparison to the SSD I have. The 64MB cache is quite nice.... I didn't even know that existed lol.

My SSD is the crucial 64GB.. The WD drive I'm talking about is:

Western Digital WD15EARS Caviar Green 1.5TB SATA 64MB

http://www.directcanada.com/products...20Digital%20WD
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
You won't find SSD vs low-powered HDD... the difference is way too great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Previous HDtach was when I was still using it, before this one I closed everything.


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,104 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I don't get why it's so slow....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by DuckieHo
View Post

You won't find SSD vs low-powered HDD... the difference is way too great.

And even more importantly a sequential bench won't really show the differences.

The difference between an SSD and a storage drive is kinda like the difference between a motorbike and a truck. Now both might have similar top speeds (sequential performance), but the bike will be much quicker through the corners and at changing speeds (random performance). And the truck can carry a lot more stuff...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by MasterFire
View Post

Previous HDtach was when I was still using it, before this one I closed everything.

HDTach isn't really that good of a SSD vs HDD benchmarks. It is very one dimensional... it only checks sequential performance of only one block size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by DuckieHo
View Post

HDTach isn't really that good of a SSD vs HDD benchmarks. It is very one dimensional... it only checks sequential performance of only one block size.



's good now?

It's a pretty filled drive though, 2/3rd of it is used.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterFire View Post

's good now?

It's a pretty filled drive though, 2/3rd of it is used.
That benchmark is only the sequential read performance of 64KB block size.

What you really needs is HD Tune Pro. It does testing of different block sizes (4KB to 2MB) and IOPS+Access Time benchmarks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
They don't hand out creditcards like cookies over here (actually, they go up in the same rate, cookies aren't given out that much either). And I already expired my trial period. So he's going to have to go with the sensible answer of one drive being 10 times as big, and the other 10 times as fast.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterFire View Post
So he's going to have to go with the sensible answer of one drive being 10 times as big, and the other 10 times as fast.
The only problem with that answer is that it isn't true...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,490 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by the_beast
View Post

The only problem with that answer is that it isn't true...

Yeah, the Green drive is 20 times larger, while the SSD is 10 times faster. The Samsung based Crucial might not have earth shattering random IO, is faster than a mechanical harddrive with random read/writes, but it's sequential speed is also much faster across the entire volume.

There is no comparing a 5400RPM HDD versus a decent SSD.

Edit: I just realized he was talking about the M255. The Indilinx based SSD's are hundreds of times faster than HDDs.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...px?i=3631&p=22

Examine the last chart where you see how much faster the Indilinx SSDs are with random reads. The random writes (higher up) represent only an order of magnitude increase, while the sequential speeds (previous page) are typically only 2-4 times faster than a 5400 RPM drive.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by RonindeBeatrice
View Post

Yeah, the Green drive is 20 times larger, while the SSD is 10 times faster. The Samsung based Crucial might not have earth shattering random IO, being only several times faster than a mechanical harddrive, but it's sequential speed is also much faster across the entire volume.

There is no comparing a 5400RPM HDD versus a decent SSD.

Edit: I just realized he was talking about the M255. The Indilinx based SSD's are hundreds of times faster than HDDs.

The problem is that it really depends what you want to do with a drive that determines how fast it is or otherwise. A sequential read bench only gives you a small part of the picture.

If I am doing fully sequential read work then the SSD is maybe 3 times faster than the mechanical drive. But the write speeds don't show the same difference - unlike an SSD, a mechanical drive reads & writes at pretty much the same speed. So if I need sequential write performance then the SSD is a waste of money, and a mechanical solution is better (as it is much cheaper), even if I don't need more space than the SSD provides.

If all I want is sequential reads, then for a given dollar amount I can usually get better performance from a mechanical array than an SSD.

But if I want any kind of random performance then the SSD completely destroys any mechanical drive, and the price premium is more than worthwhile due to the huge increase in performance.

Obviously if I need a lot of space, then a mechanical array is the only way to go (currently).

The point is that you always need to match your storage build to your usage. This is different to most other areas of computing - a faster gaming gpu is likely to be a faster rendering gpu, a faster cpu for 1 task is likely to be fast in another task also. But with storage, a solution that is terrible for one application can be the best way to go in another situation, and making the wrong choice can be an expensive mistake.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top