HDD Performance Specs Questions

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

QUESTION
I don't understand the performance information for the HDD (listed below). I took some time to write down my current hybrid HDD's real-world performance and I was hoping someone would tell me what to expect for this new HDD I am thinking of getting. I understand IOPS, seek/write times, and latency performance
----
$200 5TB Seagate Enterprise 3.5" HDD V.4

7200rpm
SATA 6Gb/s
128MB buffer
Drive ?Transfer? Rate: 600 MBps
?Internal Data Rate?: 216 MBps
Average Latency: 4.16 ms, I understand this

Putting this all together gives me little clue as to its performance
----
$135 My 2.5" 750GB Seagate Momentus XT Hybrid

7200rpm
SATA III 6Gb/s
32MB Buffer
4GB NAND Flash Cache
Qwikmark 0.4 HDD Disk Transfer "Write" Tests: 88MB/s (avg)
MB/s to Copy/Paste Large Chunk Files (like movies): 65/85/92MB/s (min/avg/max)
MB/s to Copy/Paste Lots of Tiny Files (thousands): 32-50MB/s (avg/max)
150MB/s burst speed for ~3 seconds (occurs 100% of the time)
Windows 7 SP1 x64 Boot Time: 29-32 seconds (min/max)

Except for the 3 second burst mode, I literally NEVER see this drive write files over 92MB/s, and even the 92MB/s is short lived and throttles lower depending on what I'm doing.

 

[synphul]

It's hard to compare the two, the momentus is a small drive more geared toward laptops than desktop pc's. The 4gb of nand flash should help some by caching information accessed often so the drive doesn't have to physically search for it every time. Even though it's a 7200rpm drive, it's a 2.5" drive vs a 3.5" desktop hard drive. Typically the information at the outside of the physical disk platter inside will be accessed faster than data toward the inside near the spindle. Like a bicycle wheel, the bigger the wheel at the same rpm's, the larger the outermost circumference, the faster it's travelling/more distance it's covering. In this case, more data that's being read/written. The platters are larger/wider in a 3.5" drive and will perform better than a 2.5" laptop hard drive.

For actual performance of the 5tb seagate your best bet is to read reviews where it's been benchmarked similar to this one.

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_enterprise_capacity_6tb_35_hdd_review_v4

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

It's hard to compare the two, the momentus is a small drive more geared toward laptops than desktop pc's. The 4gb of nand flash should help some by caching information accessed often so the drive doesn't have to physically search for it every time. Even though it's a 7200rpm drive, it's a 2.5" drive vs a 3.5" desktop hard drive. Typically the information at the outside of the physical disk platter inside will be accessed faster than data toward the inside near the spindle. Like a bicycle wheel, the bigger the wheel at the same rpm's, the larger the outermost circumference, the faster it's travelling/more distance it's covering. In this case, more data that's being read/written. The platters are larger/wider in a 3.5" drive and will perform better than a 2.5" laptop hard drive.

For actual performance of the 5tb seagate your best bet is to read reviews where it's been benchmarked similar to this one.

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_enterprise_capacity_6tb_35_hdd_review_v4

Why would people pay $350+ for a 1TB SSD that has $450-550MB/s when a $200 drive w/ 5x storage can do 234? In loading games and stuff isn't that really just shaving off a minute of waiting? If this seagate had to load a 65GB game all at once it'd take 6.19 minutes while an SSD at 550MB/s would take 1.96 minutes.

I must be missing something. 5x capacity at half the price and the difference in a completely unreal loading situation is 4 minutes of waiting? In a real game you're talking a minute to load a game, two at the most. I saw comparisons between an SSD and normal 7200 rpm drive and the difference was on average only 30 seconds

How do people get low sized SSDs to work well high high capacity drives in a way to benefit from the SSD without having to break the bank or have 3+ SSDs to achieve their capacity needs?

 

[synphul]

Usually people use the ssd for the operating system (foundation of the pc's software, including drivers) and for programs. Some people load a few frequently played games on them. Because of the price and low capacity by comparison, for file storage a hard drive makes more sense. Hence the use of both. An ssd will only improve the load times of games, not the fps and with the size of games getting larger it makes more sense to install them on a larger capacity hard drive. Aside from gaming, people often have videos, photos and other documents. They like their programs and the things they interact with to run faster (ssd) but it doesn't make sense to have full dvd's or bluray video taking up space on a drive where price/gb is at a premium. Some people who don't have a ton of files/games or make use of the cloud with very fast internet connections can easily use a 500gb ssd as their only drive.

Trying to ask why people would pay x amount in price is a question that's based on perceived value. It's subjective. To someone with a restricted budget it makes no sense. To another with no real budget limitations, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice even the slightest bit of performance. You'll be scratching your head forever to try and make sense of why people value different things differently.

Just look at the suburban moms out there who drive around in diesel powered suv's or pickup trucks when the biggest load they'll ever haul is a few bags of groceries. 4wd in cities where it never snows and the truck never leaves the paved road and a massive towing capacity on a truck that will never see a trailer hitch. Because they can.

The best choice for you is the setup that will meet your needs and the one you consider the best value regardless if it makes sense to anyone else.

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

Usually people use the ssd for the operating system (foundation of the pc's software, including drivers) and for programs. Some people load a few frequently played games on them. Because of the price and low capacity by comparison, for file storage a hard drive makes more sense. Hence the use of both. An ssd will only improve the load times of games, not the fps and with the size of games getting larger it makes more sense to install them on a larger capacity hard drive. Aside from gaming, people often have videos, photos and other documents. They like their programs and the things they interact with to run faster (ssd) but it doesn't make sense to have full dvd's or bluray video taking up space on a drive where price/gb is at a premium. Some people who don't have a ton of files/games or make use of the cloud with very fast internet connections can easily use a 500gb ssd as their only drive.

Trying to ask why people would pay x amount in price is a question that's based on perceived value. It's subjective. To someone with a restricted budget it makes no sense. To another with no real budget limitations, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice even the slightest bit of performance. You'll be scratching your head forever to try and make sense of why people value different things differently.

Just look at the suburban moms out there who drive around in diesel powered suv's or pickup trucks when the biggest load they'll ever haul is a few bags of groceries. 4wd in cities where it never snows and the truck never leaves the paved road and a massive towing capacity on a truck that will never see a trailer hitch. Because they can.

The best choice for you is the setup that will meet your needs and the one you consider the best value regardless if it makes sense to anyone else.

Here, I wrote it all in much better wording. I hope this helps. I even emailed Samsung tech support
-----------
Scenario
------------
I have two storage drives

a) 500GB Samsung 850 EVO
b) 5TB Seagate Enterprise V4 7200rpm SATA 6Gb/s 128MB Cache

SCENARIO theorized
--Because of Intel Smart Response Technology, the SSD will partition 64GB of SSD space for read/write usage by the HDD
-------and with Magician Software 4GB of RAM is used as another cache

THEORETICAL PROCESS, could it work like this?
-------
1) HDD sends up to 64GB of its data to SSD partition (Intel Smart)
2) SSD sends data to 4GB RAM partition (Magician)
therefore
3) RAM contains both HDD and SSD data
4) CONCLUSION: this will cause the RAM to become a 4GB@3GHz DDR4 "bridge of communication" between two drives for SHARED read/write data because of this circular data shuffling. This should, in effect, cause the HDD to either run at its max speed at all times (216MB/s) or to run at SSD speeds (550MB/s to 1000MB/s)

Correct or not correct?

The only reason I consider this is because I have over 2,400GB of games and RAID arrays won't work

My PC:
i7-5820K @4.2GHz
16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4@3GHz LPX, OC'd CL down to 11
Cooler Master Nepton 240M
MSI X99 SLI PLUS mobo
6GB nVIDIA GTX 980ti (EVGA ACX 2.0+ SC)
500GB Samsung 850 EVO
5TB Seagate Enterprise V4 7200rpm SATA III 6Gb/s
EVGA P2 1000W
Phanteks Enthoo Pro

 

[synphul]

Any caching helps but will still run out faster than an hdd can keep up with. Or need data that's not been cached. Cpu caches run fastest, then ram, then ssd, then hdd. Data can only move as fast as the slowest piece of the puzzle. Regardless of how complex the caching is, it only helps to avoid searching the hdd again for the most commonly used pieces of data. It doesn't eliminate hdd access all together and it won't work like filling up a variety of cache's to avoid hdd speeds coming into play. Worst case scenario, games load like they normally would off a hard drive. Slower than an ssd but not painfully slow either. Most loading happens between chapters.

 

[CmdrJeffSinclair]

Any caching helps but will still run out faster than an hdd can keep up with. Or need data that's not been cached. Cpu caches run fastest, then ram, then ssd, then hdd. Data can only move as fast as the slowest piece of the puzzle. Regardless of how complex the caching is, it only helps to avoid searching the hdd again for the most commonly used pieces of data. It doesn't eliminate hdd access all together and it won't work like filling up a variety of cache's to avoid hdd speeds coming into play. Worst case scenario, games load like they normally would off a hard drive. Slower than an ssd but not painfully slow either. Most loading happens between chapters.

So if I use an SSD as a cache with Intel SRT 64GB, then let's say the MAX speed of my HDD before throttling is 216MB/s, does that mean it won't throttle and run at max much longer (until it get hot then throttles)? In other words, the SSD cache would only boost my performance from the HDDs sustained data transfer rate of 175MB/s to 216MB/s but no matter what would never exceed that max? Or would it still throttle to the 175MB/s even if it's not hot?

When does an HDD throttle? I know HDD's have a 3-5 second burst speed then they drop to "sustained" speeds. I was hoping an SSD would stop that from happening and I hoped then that the throttling could only occur from heat. If the SSD won't increase the speed of the HDD then an SSD would be a waste for me. Windows 8 and higher basically have no boot times, so my only benefit would be to load up a few tiny programs at a hefty price.

I'd really love an explanation of what to expect from an SSD as an HDD cache!! Thanks man!