HDD/SSD benchmark results in T60/T60p **PIX**

[sjthinkpader]

I am starting to convert the R52/T43s in my household to T60/T60p. In the process, I've selected some of the fastest 2.5 inch SATA HDDs available today. Along are benchmark results from the factory 5400rpm drive and relatively fast older 7200rpm drives for comparison:

The single platter Seagate Momentus 7200.4 250GB is one of the fastest drives and perfect for a machine that doesn't need that much storage. I picked up my copy from Newegg.com for about $60 and $1 S/H

The Hitachi 7K500 500GB is king of the hill at the moment. This one also came from Newegg.com for about $90.

The Sandisk 32GB SDS5C is not the newest design as compared to the intel X25M but still very fast. This version doesn't support TRIM function in Windows7.

Tom's Hardware also confirm these are the fastest available.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009 ... ,1113.html

I posted 1.8 and 2.5 PATA HDD/SSD results in X2x/X3x/X4x forum:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=60

[sarbin]

interesting...
i'm thinking about getting the hitachi 500gb.

quick question on the data in your chart...
you've got 'udma-2' listed, is that a typo?

[AIX]

Good topic, I'm thinking of buying a new HDD for my T60; most probably it will be a Seagate 7200.4 (160/250GB), Hitachi drives (2.5") being hard to find (don't know why) on the local market right now. Could you tell me if your 7200.4 is ok? Is there any noise or clicking sounds?

[sjthinkpader]

interesting...
i'm thinking about getting the hitachi 500gb.

quick question on the data in your chart...
you've got 'udma-2' listed, is that a typo?

I was surprised too but not quite sure how to fix it. Did not have time to look into it before going on a trip.

Good topic, I'm thinking of buying a new HDD for my T60; most probably it will be a Seagate 7200.4 (160/250GB), Hitachi drives (2.5") being hard to find (don't know why) on the local market right now. Could you tell me if your 7200.4 is ok? Is there any noise or clicking sounds?

This is my first Seagate in a long time. The drive is very quiet, no clicking at all. I doubt there are much price difference between 160GB and 250GB. 250GB will be faster due to higher areal density.

[sjh953]

I just came across this thread, downloaded CrystalDiskMark 2.2, and ran it with default settings on my 2007-WUK T60p, WinXP Pro SP3, and the 160gb Intel X25-M G2 SSD.

The numbers ['Test Number' = 5, 100mb]:
Seq/Read[MB/s]: 137.1, Seq/Write: 92.41
512k/Read: 126.8, 512k/Write: 91.72
4k/Read: 16.50, 4k/Write: 29.29

I'm not technical enough to know what the numbers mean -- but the machine is much more responsive now than it was with the IBM-supplied 100gb platter drive.

[sjthinkpader]

These are great numbers and first I've seem from intel X25-M in Thinkpads. If you will use the Copy function and PM me the numbers, I will add it to my table.

[sjthinkpader]

This is the updated table with the intel X25-M G2 160GB benchmark data provided by sjh953. Clearly this is a very nice SSD with large write cache. It should support TRIM in Windows7 as well.

[vinuneuro]

The Seagate 7200.4 is not a very good primary drive imo. I used one for a short while before returning it. The access times are just too high, so everyday usability is quite sluggish. They'd probably make great server and storage drives though with really fast read/write. This applies even moreso to the 7K500 which has even faster read/write and even slower access times.

The WD Scorpio Black is by far the best primary drive imo, but I along with many other Thinkpad (and Mac) users experienced vibration problems with them. So I ended up with a Fujitsu MHZ2320BJ-G2. Similar read/write to the WD, with slightly slower access time, but vibration free and almost completely inaudible. The Seagate was a bit louder than the WD and Fujitsu.

[sjthinkpader]

Thanks for the comments. I haven't tested the MHZ2320BJ although I had good experience with Fujitsu drives in general.

In comparing the datasheets of the Fujitsu 320GB and Seagate 250GB, both track to track (1.5mS/1.5mS) and avg seek (10.5mS/11mS) are very similar. I am surprised you can detect 0.5mS difference in operation. The Seagate 250GB drive I have in use is not sluggish by any means.

[Marin85]

The Seagate 7200.4 is not a very good primary drive imo. I used one for a short while before returning it. The access times are just too high, so everyday usability is quite sluggish. They'd probably make great server and storage drives though with really fast read/write. This applies even moreso to the 7K500 which has even faster read/write and even slower access times.

The WD Scorpio Black is by far the best primary drive imo, but I along with many other Thinkpad (and Mac) users experienced vibration problems with them. So I ended up with a Fujitsu MHZ2320BJ-G2. Similar read/write to the WD, with slightly slower access time, but vibration free and almost completely inaudible. The Seagate was a bit louder than the WD and Fujitsu.

Hmm, I thought, according to the official specs by Hitachi the 7K500 happens to have the lowest access times among the current 7200rpm laptop HDDs. I also have a few slightly older HDs. In the spirit of this thread, maybe I should benchmark their access times altogether and post them somewhere here

@sjthinkpader: Great comparison! Would it be possible to add access times to your table?

[sjthinkpader]

Sure, I will be happy to include your data of different drives.

Access time is really in several pieces, spin up (around 3 Sec), avg latency (around 4 mS), track to track (around 1.5 mS), avg seek (around 11mS) for 7200rpm 250/500GB class drives. But none of these really varies too much in HDD designs of the same generation.

In the interest of reducing disk crash, I normally set a spin down timer. This is actually the longest time in comparison to seek etc. As long as the spin down timer is not set to too short of an interval, it will not impact user experience.

On a new OS installation, frequently the disk is heavily fragmented. So my standard procedure is to defrag the drive once installation is complete. This will give the appearance of a sluggish HDD if defag is not done and I suspect vinuneuro's issue may be due to fragmentation. Other factors impacting benchmark performance is a drive full of data. Then seek time will be more than average as the head will take longer to move from location of the FAT to the data. With few exceptions, my benchmarks are taken after a new OS build.

[vinuneuro]

Manufacturer specs are not that accurate then it seems. When I checked them both in this laptop with HD Tune, the Seagate was around 17.3-17.5ms. My Fujitsu is 15.5ms. That's a big difference.

The 7K500 is actually in the 16.8ms range it looks like, just searching google. Still too slow imo for everyday use based on how the Seagate behaved.

I really wish the WD didn't have the vibration problem. The performance is just fantastic. Decent read/write, and access time was around 14.7.

[Marin85]

Manufacturer specs are not that accurate then it seems.

Agreed. Actually I also wanted to mention in my previous post that I was kinf of disappointed to measure longer average seek times when I received my 7K500 than what was advertised. Nevertheless, the system became more responsive than with my older Hitachi 7K200 (which BTW has much better average seek times than any of the current laptop HDDs) or Seagate 7200.3.

I second sjthinkpader´s view that first thing to do after installing OS and drivers is defrag. It does make BIG difference.


@sjthinkpader:OK, then, I will add my results in a few days when my new external HD + enclosure arrive. Indeed, it is now not so good idea to benchmark those as 3 of them are full to the top including the main one...

[vinuneuro]

I did not know that the disk is very fragmented after a fresh OS install, thanks for the tip. All the drives were tested shortly after OS installs, so I'd assume they were all affected the same way and relative performance compared to one another was still accurate.

I think there may be a correlation between platter density and performance. The 7200.4 and 7K500 went from 160gb to 250gb per platter compared to the 7200.3 and 7K320; and the read/write speeds went up considerably, but the access times suffered a bit.

[sjthinkpader]

Manufacturer specs are not that accurate then it seems. When I checked them both in this laptop with HD Tune, the Seagate was around 17.3-17.5ms. My Fujitsu is 15.5ms. That's a big difference.

The 7K500 is actually in the 16.8ms range it looks like, just searching google...

Sure, you never know and have no control where the data is placed, or how many fragments. Just stepping one more track is 1.5mSec and maximum latency (sector placed 180 deg from the head) would add 4mSec. I don't usually use HD Tune but I will take a look.

It will be good if you can run Crystal Diskmark then we can see apples to apples comparison.

...I think there may be a correlation between platter density and performance. The 7200.4 and 7K500 went from 160gb to 250gb per platter compared to the 7200.3 and 7K320; and the read/write speeds went up considerably, but the access times suffered a bit.

Yes, increased areal density is much easier than increasing spindle speed. 5400rpm to 7200rpm is only 33% increase but 160GB/platter to 250GB/platter is a 56% increase. Here is a comparison of high spindle speed/low areal density and low spindle speed/high areal density designs, Hitachi 7K100 vs WD (Apr 15 table):
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=60

In the past, data from different heads are interleaved to improve performance. Judging benchmarks from today's single platter and two platter designs, it seems they don't do that anymore.

[crashnburn]

I am starting to convert the R52/T43s in my household to T60/T60p. In the process, I've selected some of the fastest 2.5 inch SATA HDDs available today. Along are benchmark results from the factory 5400rpm drive and relatively fast older 7200rpm drives for comparison:

The single platter Seagate Momentus 7200.4 250GB is one of the fastest drives and perfect for a machine that doesn't need that much storage. I picked up my copy from Newegg.com for about $60 and $1 S/H

The Hitachi 7K500 500GB is king of the hill at the moment. This one also came from Newegg.com for about $90.

The Sandisk 32GB SDS5C is not the newest design as compared to the intel X25M but still very fast. This version doesn't support TRIM function in Windows7.

Tom's Hardware also confirm these are the fastest available.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009 ... ,1113.html

I posted 1.8 and 2.5 PATA HDD/SSD results in X2x/X3x/X4x forum:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=60

Can someone please do an appropriate comparative ..with... 500GB WD Scorpio Blue 5400 / 500GB Hitachi 7200 / 640 GB+ WD ...??

For my T61...

[sjthinkpader]

It'll be great if someone will do the benchmark.

Without that, the 5400rpm 500GB of course will be slower than 7200rpm 500GB. The 640GB will be slower too. The 640GB will be slower since the areal density is 28% more but RPM is 30% less.

[sjthinkpader]

I got the intel X25 and Samsung results a while back but just now remembered to post it.



The intel clearly is the fastest. The Samsung did pretty well also. Both these drives will support TRIM in Windows7.

note: intel G1 does not support TRIM. Samsung SSDs with firmware VBM18xxx and before doesn't support TRIM. There was a firmware update to VBM19xxx on Samsung website but since been removed. Most production date from late 2009 should support TRIM.

Here is data on various PATA HDD and SSD.
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=60