Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Vantage72

7200.3 vs. 3200BEKT vs. 7K320 - Tom's hardware benchmarks

8 posts in this topic

I'd like to know which of these drives is fastest in REAL WORLD use.

On NBR there's a guy who tested the 7K320 and WD 3200BEKT on the same notebook with PC Mark 05 and PC Mark Vantage. 7K320 is the clear winner in 4 of the 5 HDD tests. In Vista and XP.

But according to Tom's hardware I/O Meter 2003 tests the WD3200BEKT is faster than 7K320.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2-5-har...7%2C2039%2C2037

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2-5-har...7%2C2039%2C2037

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2-5-har...7%2C2039%2C2037

So my question is, which benchmark is the better predictor of real world performance: I/O Meter 2003 or PC Mark/ Vantage?

Edited by Vantage72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to know which of these drives is fastest in REAL WORLD use.

On NBR there's a guy who tested the 7K320 and WD 3200BEKT on the same notebook with PC Mark 05 and PC Mark Vantage. 7K320 is the clear winner in 4 of the 5 HDD tests. In Vista and XP.

But according to Tom's hardware I/O Meter 2003 tests the WD3200BEKT is faster than 7K320.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2-5-har...7%2C2039%2C2037

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2-5-har...7%2C2039%2C2037

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2-5-har...7%2C2039%2C2037

So my question is, which benchmark is the better predictor of real world performance: I/O Meter 2003 or PC Mark/ Vantage?

A tough question. I have the same problem myself as I'm looking for a 320gb replacement of my fast but too small 7k200 (100gb). Seems all 320gb drives have a slight problem with access times probably because of the higher density. None can match the 14.x ms (including latency) of the old 7k200. They all end up between 15.5ms and 17ms. These are values of 5400 3.5" desktop drives. Especially the 7200.3 is disappointing here since it has the highest STR and Seagate usually has very good access times. So benchmark results will vary based on weight of seek times / STR / overall performance. I think the WD is the best allrounder, having the best seek times, a pretty good STR and a very good firmware making good use of hdd cache. Of course the WD is the most expensive one around here :(

But all drives are very close so you probably won't feel a difference during normal day use. I'm tempted to wait a few more months for the 7200.4 available with up to 500gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . A tough question. I have the same problem myself as I'm looking for a 320gb replacement of my fast but too small 7k200 (100gb). Seems all 320gb drives have a slight problem with access times probably because of the higher density. None can match the 14.x ms (including latency) of the old 7k200. They all end up between 15.5ms and 17ms. These are values of 5400 3.5" desktop drives. Especially the 7200.3 is disappointing here since it has the highest STR and Seagate usually has very good access times . . . But all drives are very close so you probably won't feel a difference during normal day use. I'm tempted to wait a few more months for the 7200.4 available with up to 500gb.

If your 7K200 is the 100Gb-per-platter jobbie, these measures [from a respectable-enough OSX benching utility that'll be unfamiliar to you, with its own 'Nix & OSX quirks] may be of interest.

Worth noting:

1) each HDD attached via the same ICH7R channel to the same box

2) each HDD newly partitioned/formatted to single/GUID/HFS+ [a journalled scheme]

3) 7K200 has Apple firmware [as can pretty obviously be seen]

7K200: 095E_48BA839B.jpg

7200.3: 4DDE_48BA839B.jpg

. . FWIW [Macbook Pros have pretty good monitoring h/w & s/w] over the average working day the 7200.3 is if anything cooler than the best-in-class 7K200 by around 1C or a little better, & is about equally noisy/quiet

Edited by shoarthing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So my question is, which benchmark is the better predictor of real world performance: I/O Meter 2003 or PC Mark/ Vantage?

No one knows this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of "real world" performance? I/O Meter traditionally is considered better at capturing server/multiuser workloads, but both should give useful numbers. The Tom's Hardware review you are reading naturally uses different hardware than what the guy on NBR or what SR is using, but furthermore the Tom's Hardware I/O Meter results are intensely workstation and server role biased rather than the NBR's desktop-performance-biased testing with PC Mark Vantage.

To help clarify things Tom's Hardware even indicates that their I/O Meter results are for workstation, Database, and File Server patterns rather than for desktop use.

.

So long as the benchmark used is adequate, the far more useful thing is to ensure the rest of the testbed remains the same so that you can compare results from different drives on the same testbed properly... so what's faster? Honestly it depends how you're using it. For 99.9% of people here it will be desktop use that's the question-- even under "heavy" desktop multitasking there simply isn't enough load to get anywhere outside the realm of desktop loads, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am talking about normal desktop use to medium-heavy multitasking desktop use. Thanks for your answer continuum.

So PC Mark 05 and Vantage are an ok indication if I understand you correctly.

Well then it's interesting that two other users have posted PC Mark scores for the Seagate 7200.3 and it comes out as the fastest. They measured a Win XP startup speed of 9,7 to 10,0 MB/sec. Much faster than what Tom's Hardware measured: 7,8 Mb/sec.

ScreenShot002.jpg

e0e86d12638641.gif

Free Image Hosting by ImageBam.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but unless all test results you're using were on the exact same testbed, you can't directly compare them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both hard drives (7k200 and 7200.3). I have noticed a response difference between the two of them in regular use. The 7k200 is noticeably more responsive in comparison to the 7200.3, and I believe it's reflective of the differences in the random access times.

My guess is that the electronics in the 7200.3 are more highly optimized in comparison to the 7k200, which means that in combination with the higher areal density, allows for increases in performance which covers up the difference in random access times in most benchmarks where the amount of data requested is more important than how quickly that data is initially accessed.

I have both hard drives (7k200 and 7200.3). I have noticed a response difference between the two of them in regular use. The 7k200 is noticeably more responsive in comparison to the 7200.3, and I believe it's reflective of the differences in the random access times.

My guess is that the electronics in the 7200.3 are more highly optimized in comparison to the 7k200, which means that in combination with the higher areal density, allows for increases in performance which covers up the difference in random access times in most benchmarks where the amount of data requested is more important than how quickly that data is initially accessed.

And I did use both hard drives on the same exact hardware.

I have both hard drives (7k200 and 7200.3). I have noticed a response difference between the two of them in regular use. The 7k200 is noticeably more responsive in comparison to the 7200.3, and I believe it's reflective of the differences in the random access times.

My guess is that the electronics in the 7200.3 are more highly optimized in comparison to the 7k200, which means that in combination with the higher areal density, allows for increases in performance which covers up the difference in random access times in most benchmarks where the amount of data requested is more important than how quickly that data is initially accessed.

And I did use both hard drives on the same exact hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0