HDD Performance

[TheWiseGuy]

I am currently on a Alienware laptop and bench marked my current drive to be at a RRS of 1.46 MB/s (Random Read Speed) while on a spare drive I got a RRS of 1.54 MB/s which is a old 500 gig PS4 Hard drive. Is it worth the switch or should I use a different program then Defraggler to benchmark my drives?

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

[Mooshi]

Crystaldiskmark is all you need. Also please remove the formatting from your post. It's like impossible to read it on night theme.

[TheWiseGuy]

1 minute ago, Mooshi said:

Crystaldiskmark is all you need. Also please remove the formatting from your post. It's like impossible to read it on night theme.

Do you think it would be worth it to swap the HDD's 

[flibberdipper]

Random speeds really don't mean dick IRL. Honestly sequential speeds are more important.

[TheWiseGuy]

1 minute ago, tmcclelland455 said:

Random speeds really don't mean dick IRL. Honestly sequential speeds are more important.

Ill post the results of both drivers in a minute stick around please.

[TheWiseGuy]

4 minutes ago, TheWiseGuy said:

Ill post the results of both drivers in a minute stick around please.

Results which seems better?

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, TheWiseGuy said:

I am currently on a Alienware laptop and bench marked my current drive to be at a RRS of 1.46 MB/s (Random Read Speed) while on a spare drive I got a RRS of 1.54 MB/s which is a old 500 gig PS4 Hard drive. Is it worth the switch or should I use a different program then Defraggler to benchmark my drives?

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

It's a difference of 10% and that's under the worst case scenario. It's usually not worth "upgrading" anything if that's all you'll get unless your time is literally money.

 

Defragging also does little to improve performance unless the partition is severely fragmented (like 40%+) . SATA drives in AHCI mode have a thing called NCQ, which tries to pick up data in a way to minimize how many revolutions the head has to do to pick up all the data. This picture does a better job describing it:

 

So I think this alone pretty much resolved a lot of issues with fragmentation.

[flibberdipper]

37 minutes ago, TheWiseGuy said:

Results which seems better?

 

This one is (by far) going to be the faster drive in actual use.

 

37 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

So I think this alone pretty much resolved a lot of issues with fragmentation.

In my experience it really hasn't. When I set up my Plex server it was around 15% frag'd and it took a good minute and a half to be 100% done loading, but after a defrag that number dropped to around 45 seconds (give or take a bit because Windows).

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, tmcclelland455 said:

In my experience it really hasn't. When I set up my Plex server it was around 15% frag'd and it took a good minute and a half to be 100% done loading, but after a defrag that number dropped to around 45 seconds (give or take a bit because Windows).

It depends on what you're doing probably. But the last time I've seen anyone do a fragmentation test, they really had to fragment the drive before performance started to appreciably drop.