Yes, my point was that (if anything) the 1st gen HDD already having 1TB full of data would only give the 2nd gen HDD an advantage. I would either expect the 2nd gen HDD to show really good improvements, or really REALLY good improvements. However what I saw was what seemed to be very similar performance between the two. For what it's worth I went ahead and used Acronis to clone the contents of the 1st gen HDD to the 2nd gen. I re-ran the tests and the 2nd gen ran marginally slower than it did when it was empty. So, not very surprising.
As far as my computer's specs, I don't see how that is very important. I am comparing apples to apples.... because of the fact I am testing both HDDs on my computer. I am not comparing results across different computers with different specs. From what the original article said I expected a large performance boost between gen 1 HDD and gen 2 HDD. This was not the case when I tested them both.... holding all other variables constant (my computer).
But yes you are correct that my box isn't a dedicated benchmark setup.... so there could have been background services running. However, I ran the tests twice on each HDD. And I re-ran the tests again after I cloned the HDD's contents as well. I am not seeing any significant differences. (So I doubt my results are due to background processes.)
Thanks for the recommendations on software I could try. I am half curious about doing further investigations..... and half ready to just call it a day and return this new 2nd Gen HDD to Amazon.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give that a shot....... and the results are in.
I ran the test as you suggested using short strokes of 100GB. I am surprised though.... it actually shows that the 1st Gen model is a little bit FASTER than the 2nd Gen model in the random read access mode. What the heck! As far as the standard benchmark mode.... it looked the same. A 14% improvement for throughput. But I was hoping to get the improvements shown in the article in regard to random access IOPS. I figure random access would be more like my typical usage on the computer. (I can post the screenshots if you want.)
I'm not particularly concerned with comparing SSDs with HDDs here. Even if many of the highest gains were still under 100 IOPS... the key thing I am trying to focus in on here is the difference shown in performance between Gen 1 and Gen 2 of this HDD. That is what I was hoping to replicate when I purchased this HDD.
I do have a SDD as my main OS drive. The purpose of this other drive is to store my media. But.... that's kind of beside the point here.... which is why I'm not getting such strong differences in performance between WD's 4TB Black Gen 1 and Gen 2.
I think you might be right about queue depths. It's too bad HDTune doesn't have an option for configuring that.... ... I might have to try some of the other software mentioned...... (sigh)
Sounds right on the STR part. In regards to the random access.... I realize I wasn't getting the same levels of IOPS as in SR's review.... but I had hoped that when comparing rev 1 with rev 2... on my computer..... they would at least show some kind of marked improvement. However.... as you and another guy have mentioned..... it could be this queue depth. I don't know too much about queue depth, but after some brief googling.... I imagine in a real world scenario I probably would have a good deal of queue depth.... HDD operations waiting in some queue to be executed.... giving the firmware a chance to shine at optimization.
I am going to try your suggestion of running the file benchmark test (HD tune doesn't have a web server test that I could see) ..... just give me a minute..... thanks for your patience. So in this File Benchmark test I did see the Rev 2 performing a lot better than Rev 1. At least there is that! :-) (if you want I can post the screenshots on this too.)
I have a SSD too.... just hoping to have a nice fast HDD to store the majority of my media. And it helps for video editing to have a little bit faster HDD performance when reading in some of the assets. (Yes I know I can do RAID to get better performance..... but I am working within my cost boundaries. And yes I have multiple hard drives in use for scratch disk, etc..)