Info More proof of why you should always use an SSD, even a basic SSD!

[NightHawkRMX]

Although this topic is already well explained, I bought a refurbished hard drive and figured I would post some results. I also questioned whether I should post this or not because of the results, but I did anyhow.

Drive one (C Kingston A400 240GB SSD.
Sata iii
170gb of 240gb full.
345 hours powered on
782 power on count (i restart often)
Purchased new just a few months ago.

Drive two (D Seagate barracuda 7200RPM 750GB (ST3750528AS)
Sata i
16248 Hours powered on
28 power on count
Completely empty fresh format
Purchased refurbished just days ago.

Both have good health in Crystal Disk info as of the beginning of this test.

Drive two would be representative of an average hard drive from an older system that has been used for a while.
Drive 1 would be representative of a new SSD you would buy.

Drive 2 actually has an advantage since it is blank and the OS is not affecting benchmark speeds unlike drive 1, however, this does not help it much, spoiler.

Here are Crystal Disk Mark results.

Drive One:
https://ibb.co/PCtG75V
Drive Two:
https://ibb.co/Wn8qXGh

As you can see, the performance of the hard drive is 5 times slower in sequential reads, but as much as 250 times slower as much in random reads. This is a lower-end SSD is humiliating the hard drive.

However, I opened Crystal disk Info again after this test and noticed, the Seagate HDD now shows "caution" and 100 reallocated sectors. I got a refund, but this isnt to uncommon with older drives.

So your old hard drive may be hurting both your performance and reliability.

Just a few flaws with this test.
HDD condition deteriorating could have tanked performance, but this demonstrates a reliability point.
Different load on the drive from OS and different amounts of data written.
An older drive may be in a system with support for only older versions of SATA, which could slightly diminish the performance increase of the SSD.

Also, this SSD is a replacement for the original one which died after a year. So maybe I just have bad luck with drives?

 

[Darkbreeze]

You seem to have bad luck, period. Not just with drives. With power supplies and other components as well.

 

[Grobe]

About performance when using regular HDD, I always consider a partition scheme that takes into account that the sequential r/w rate is far higher at the beginning of the disk.

e.g. windows partition first, then use the rest of the disk to store media files and personal files.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Yea, I do have bad luck. Including the R9 290 I bought for $50 on fb marketplace that was a scam since it doesn't work right.

I think a boot hard drive is just a pretty bad idea, even excluding reliability.

 

[brucepascal]

WShat a joke of a comment....

"16248 Hours powered on
28 power on count
Completely empty fresh format
Purchased refurbished just days ago."

At Amazon you get a new Marshall HDD 750GB for $20 and a new WD HDD 750 for $40

You bought a USED HDD from the stoneage, that has worked 16.000 hours, and then complain that it is a lot slower than a BRANDNEW SSD ?????? Really ? Why would anyone buy a USED HDD in the first place ???

 

[NightHawkRMX]

WShat a joke of a comment....

"16248 Hours powered on
28 power on count
Completely empty fresh format
Purchased refurbished just days ago."

At Amazon you get a new Marshall HDD 750GB for $20 and a new WD HDD 750 for $40

You bought a USED HDD from the stoneage, that has worked 16.000 hours, and then complain that it is a lot slower than a BRANDNEW SSD ?????? Really ? Why would anyone buy a USED HDD in the first place ???

I don't trust the marshal. First of all, it's not a brand I recognize. Also the label on the picture and the product listing show different rotation speeds. The picture shows a model made in 2014, so its probably an older model as well.

Also, performance may not be great as It's a laptop "5400rpm" drive that is limited to an older sataii standard.
The WD is double the cost.

I am trying to get as cheap as possible since it's for a PC I intend to resell.

Also, I got a refund and bought a used but much newer (2015 sataiii which is newer than the marshall) model which Seagate barracuda 7200rpm 1tb for $20. It probably will dust the marshal assuming its been taken care of.

And no it wasn't a complaint, I knew it would be slow, although I expected it to work. This post was meant as some evidence of why an SSD is really the best upgrade for systems with older hard drives.

A new 1tb 7200rpm 3.5in HDD would cost almost double this Seagate Barracuda 1tb, although I may have been better off throwing in one of these guys
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/88V48d/seagate-internal-hard-drive-st2000nm0001