Jump to content

internal hdd vs external ssd

woo124
By woo124
in Storage Devices
 Share
Posted

depends on the connection type.

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

internal one would be sata (sata2 I think)

external one would be USB 3.0

cool, now it depends on your Drives and the rated speeds. sequential or random read/write? 

 

i think that a SATA 7200rpm HDD will be able to out perform a cheaper SSD on USB 3.0, but i'm not 100% sure. it's going to be a case by case issue i think. 

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

cool, now it depends on your Drives and the rated speeds. sequential or random read/write? 

 

i think that a SATA 7200rpm HDD will be able to out perform a cheaper SSD on USB 3.0, but i'm not 100% sure. it's going to be a case by case issue i think. 

What, even an ancient SSD on USB 3 will outperform a 7200RPM drive even on sata 3(7200rpm can't even saturate sata 1)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

What, even an ancient SSD on USB 3 will outperform a 7200RPM drive even on sata 3(7200rpm can't even saturate sata 1)

in theory yes, always, but i don't feel like that happens in practice. 

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

no, sata 1 = 1.5gbps, sata 2 = 3gbps, sata 3 = 6gbps

SATA doesn't reach it's theoretical bandwidth for storage speeds so 150MB/s is a fair number. That and SanDisk agrees that SATA I will cap out at around 150MB/s. 

http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8142/~/difference-between-sata-i,-sata-ii-and-sata-iii

 

Either way, theoretical bandwidth or realistic bandwidth, 7k drives are capable of reaching both numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

SATA doesn't reach it's theoretical bandwidth for storage speeds so 150MB/s is a fair number. That and SanDisk agrees that SATA I will cap out at around 150MB/s. 

http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8142/~/difference-between-sata-i,-sata-ii-and-sata-iii

 

Either way, theoretical bandwidth or realistic bandwidth, 7k drives are capable of reaching both numbers.

Well, according to charts, 7200rpm don't get past 127 as a maximum, their average is probably even lower.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3.5-hard-drive-charts-2008/Maximum-Write-Transfer-Performance,667.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Well, according to charts, 7200rpm don't get past 127 as a maximum, their average is probably even lower.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/3.5-hard-drive-charts-2008/Maximum-Write-Transfer-Performance,667.html

"Hard drive charts 2008" 

 

It's 2015, just a few months from 2016, those results are out of date by a good few years... Even my 5940 RPM drive is putting out faster sequential speeds than those drives.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing Storage Devices

×