Real world 7200 vs 5400 vs 4200 speed tests out there?

Question

Level 4

1,388 points

Real world 7200 vs 5400 vs 4200 speed tests out there?

Other than xbench, does anybody know of any other good, "real-world" HD benchmark utilities out there?

MacinTouch was writing that

"Xbench's User Interface and Disk scores are very inconsistent"

In the MacinTouch article I was looking at, what they do is a real-world test of duplicating a 207MB file and the results were that the 7200 disk they used came in much faster than the larger capacity, slower HD options.

I'm interested in this because I just got my MBP and chose the 100 GB 7200 rpm option because the Apple Store salesman convinced me it was really faster than the 160 GB 5400 rpm version that is selected by default.

A friend of mine went for the 200 GB 4200 rpm model instead, and xbench is showing better hard disk results for him, as follows:

Me (100 GB 7200 rpm):

Disk Test 28.37
Sequential 45.22
Uncached Write 68.84 42.27 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 55.99 31.68 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 22.79 6.67 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 81.94 41.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 20.67
Uncached Write 6.51 0.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 59.57 19.07 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 74.16 0.53 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 102.37 19.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Friend (200 GB 4200 rpm):

Disk Test 35.47
Sequential 49.66
Uncached Write 69.48 42.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 51.20 28.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 29.95 8.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 75.53 37.96 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 27.59
Uncached Write 10.45 1.11 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 55.93 17.91 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 51.92 0.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 82.19 15.25 MB/sec [256K blocks]

What really is a good test though? I would consider making a case to Apple that they "sold me a bill of goods" here and try to get my HD changed if it really was slower than the larger capacity, theoretically slower HD!

But is the xbench test really accurate? Or it is, at MacinTouch claims "inconsistent"?

One poster in these forums said that the 7200 rpm really shows its speed when performing such tasks as drilling through large numbers of files in folders, etc.

If I go into my Mail folders, for example, my folder with sent mail has over 13,000 files in it. Nevertheless the folder view opened almost instantaneously. Would that also be the case with the 4200 rpm HD? Is there even a way of benchmarking such differences?

doug

doug

iMac G5 20" / iSight, Mac OS X (10.4.3), 1.5 GB RAM

Posted on Nov 25, 2006 4:34 AM

Reply

Answer 1

BillF

Level 3

649 points

Nov 25, 2006 7:04 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

Well, I do not know about a real world test, however, I have my 17 inch doing a batch capture in Final Cut Pro, I have mail open, and I am surfing the web. I have the stock 160 GB drive (Hitachi 5400 RPM perpindicular mechanism). I have not dropped one frame yet in the past hour.

That seems pretty good to me.

Reply

Answer 2

Toad

Level 1

135 points

Nov 25, 2006 7:38 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

I think this is what you're looking for:

http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

Bottom line: Drive speed if heavily influenced by how much data you have on the drive and who manufactured the device. An empty 7200 rpm is the fastest, but at ~75GB, the 5400 drive is faster. And at ~150GB, the 4200 rpm drive is faster.

I had a 100GB, 7200 rpm drive in my previous MBP but opted for the 160GB, 5400 rpm drive in my new C2D machine. In day to day use, I can't tell any speed difference. However, the new 5400 drive is definitely quieter and produces less vibration than the 7200.

Apple chose wisely in making the 160GB, 5400 rpm drive the default, I think. It's the best choice for most people.

Reply

Answer 3

geyien

Level 1

71 points

Nov 25, 2006 8:10 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

I've just taken delivery of a 15" 2.33Ghz C2D MBP with the 200GB 4,200rpm hard drive and 3GB RAM. Before this, I had a 17" 2.16Ghz CD MBP with the 120GB 5,400rpm drive. I don't have any official benchmarks, but I must say that I'm not currently noticing any slowdowns or annoying consequences of going with the bigger / slower drive. Everything works very smoothly and fast, including copying large files back and forth to my Firewire drive. Just adding this as an encouragement to those who might like the 200GB drive but are worried about the speed - for day-to-day stuff, it's perfectly fine (not sure what it would be like in regular disk intensive situations though).

Reply

Answer 4

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 25, 2006 2:56 PM in response to geyien

OK. Because of the loose battery issue and this obvious ambiguity about the speed of the HD (and what the salesman originally told me) Apple is being nice and is willing to let me exchange my MBP for the one with the 200 GB 4200 rpm version, which seems to run actually faster in tests relevant to me. Naturally I have to pay the difference in cost.

I'm waiting for the return label now. Should I go for it?

doug

Reply

Answer 5

Nov 25, 2006 3:04 PM in response to Doug Lerner2

Yes you should. You obviously have an issue withthe drive you have so if you do nothing that isn't going to change. At a minimum if you change you can say you got a bigger drive.

Reply

Answer 6

geyien

Level 1

71 points

Nov 25, 2006 8:08 PM in response to Doug Lerner2

I would say go for it, at least based on my couple of days so far with the 200GB drive. I don't know the deeper technology, but I can already say the following:

- The drive is silent and doesn't seem to produce much heat at all.
- The drive runs very smoothly for all the day-to-day tasks I do, I don't notice much difference from the 120GB 5,400rpm drive I gave up.
- Having the 200GB space (well, actually you only get 186GB actual space due to ... well ... however these things are measured) is incredible! Plenty of room for everything!
- The drive is a Toshiba, if that helps you decide any.

I'm enjoying mine, hope you will enjoy yours (I think you know you want it!)

Reply

Answer 7

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 26, 2006 1:24 AM in response to geyien

Did you try xbench on your 200 GB drive?

doug

Reply

Answer 8

geyien

Level 1

71 points

Nov 26, 2006 1:53 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

I just ran Xbench on my MBP, here is what I got for the disk test:

Disk Test 33.11
Sequential 48.14
Uncached Write 59.90 36.78 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 60.00 33.95 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 28.98 8.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.72 33.03 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 25.24
Uncached Write 9.27 0.98 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 57.02 18.26 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 49.92 0.35 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 76.81 14.25 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Reply

Answer 9

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 26, 2006 2:10 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

You know, I'm wonder what these xbench numbers really mean now...

Looking just at the random read/write results comparing the 100 GB 7200 rpm drive I got:

Me (100 GB / 7200 rpm):

Disk Test 28.37
Sequential 45.22
Uncached Write 68.84 42.27 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 55.99 31.68 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 22.79 6.67 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 81.94 41.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 20.67
Uncached Write 6.51 0.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 59.57 19.07 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 74.16 0.53 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 102.37 19.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Friend (200 GB / 4200 rpm):

Disk Test 35.47
Sequential 49.66
Uncached Write 69.48 42.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 51.20 28.97 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 29.95 8.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 75.53 37.96 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 27.59
Uncached Write 10.45 1.11 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 55.93 17.91 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 51.92 0.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 82.19 15.25 MB/sec [256K blocks]

For the sequential read/writes the 7200 rpm drive is faster for the larger block operations and the 4200 rpm drive is slightly faster for the smaller block operations. Which is more commonly used in real life?

For the random read/writes the 7200 rpm drive is much faster for larger block operations and is faster than the 4200 rpm drive in 3 out of 4 categories.

So why does xbench give the 4200 drive an overall higher speed rating?

I'm wondering how the 5400 drive rates, if it is perpendicular. Anybody know?

doug

Reply

Answer 10

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 26, 2006 2:27 AM in response to geyien

Thanks, Geylen,

In a majority of categories, especially, the random operations, the 7200 rpm drive appears to be clearly faster. Yet xbench rates the 4200 drive as faster overall.

Interesting...

Thanks!

doug

Reply

Answer 11

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 26, 2006 6:42 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

Can somebody with a 160 GB / 5400 rpm drive run xbench and post the disk results...

Also, are all the 160 GB in the new MBP perpendicular drives?

Thanks,

doug

Reply

Answer 12

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 26, 2006 7:54 AM in response to Doug Lerner2

I decided to go ahead and do the exchange Apple agreed to (of course I pay the difference) and change mine for the 200GB drive. Everybody here who is using it seems pleased with their choice, and even if xbench shows it running at 80-85% of the 7200 rpm speed for certain testsm xbench also shows it running 2 to 3 times faster than the 4200 rpm 60GB drive in my old PB17", so it will be more than sufficient.

So I hope everything else is ok with the new MBP when it arrives! 🙂

doug@waiting for an RMA label...

Reply

Answer 13

Nov 26, 2006 2:12 PM in response to Doug Lerner2

Can somebody with a 160 GB / 5400 rpm drive run
xbench and post the disk results...

I second this.

Considering in some tests the 4200 seems faster than the 7200, I'd be VERY interested to see how the 5400 performs with the addition of the perpendicular writing.

Reply

Answer 14

jmike

Level 1

8 points

Nov 27, 2006 8:21 PM in response to Doug Lerner2

Can somebody with a 160 GB / 5400 rpm drive run
xbench and post the disk results...

Disk is about half-full. Test was run with a few apps (none should be I/O intensive) running.

Results 38.20
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.4.8 (8N1037)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model MacBookPro2,2
Drive Type Hitachi HTS541616J9SA00
Disk Test 38.20
Sequential 59.16
Uncached Write 56.68 34.80 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 64.34 36.40 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 58.45 17.11 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 57.74 29.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 28.21
Uncached Write 10.01 1.06 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 63.20 20.23 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.25 0.46 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 93.08 17.27 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Also, are all the 160 GB in the new MBP perpendicular
drives?

Mine is: http://www.hitachigst.com/hdd/support/5k160/5k160_ov.htm

C2D MBP, Powerbook G4, Powermac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Reply

Answer 15

Doug Lerner2 Author

Level 4

1,388 points

Nov 27, 2006 8:34 PM in response to jmike

Very comparable to the 100GB/7200rpm!

doug

Reply