Best phone camera 2017
The new drive is 7200rpm and the old drive is 5400rpm, now at times it seems the 5400rpm is faster to access. Could it be that the 5400rpm is about 10GB, nd the 7200rpm is 60GB...also the 60GB has a 8mb cache i believe.
Spec det are: p>
AMD Athl 2200XP p>
ASUS mobo p>
60GB WD Caviar 7200rpm p>
2 Port PCI USB 2.0 p>
Nvidia GF4 MX440 64MB p>
DVD + CDRW Both are Sony. p>
56k PCI Mod p>
Any opinions, not really any problems to be honest, more curious!?
Yes this is logical. which without the maths was my thinking too.
thanks 4 the reply.
I am no expert, but surely the software only has to search the FAT table to find the file, and then move the read head to locate it? It doesn't have to search the whole drive.
I wonder if it could be something as simple as the PATH statement. Again, mere guesswork.
He who seeks, shall find.
I don't deny it was guesswork on my part, hence my cautious approach to the reply.
I wasn't suggesting that the heads had to search the whole drive, merely that, on the larger drive, there is six times as much of whatever it searches compared with the smaller drive but, it can only do it at 1.38 times the speed.
AMD 4 ever, in theory the new drive should be a lot faster than the old. What you want to look for is the *seek time* or *access speed* of each drive, that is what will give you a more accurate guide to the *finding of info*. speeds of the drives. J.
The problem is, "at times it seems the 5400rpm is faster to access" is hardly a scientific test.
What a 7200rpm drive does faster is spin faster. thus the average rotational latency is less. of course that does not make it faster to access data in all circumstances, but on average, it must do.
Rotational latency - when the heads reach a particular track, the latency is the time to wait until the data required gets round to the read/write heads. Clearly faster when the drive spins faster.
Seek time - the time the heads take to move from one track to another.
Acess time, the sum of seek time time + latency + other delays (usually small compared with the main two).
try creating smaller partitions and see if you can put this matter to rest! if the time it takes to access something on a 10gb partition is faster than the time taken to access the same file on the 10 gb drive or not ;o))
its possible that you mother board isnt running the new hdd at its full transfer rate of 100mb/s. you should check to see if your cable is a 40pin 80 wire 100mb/s rated parallel cable if not the performance of your drive could be chocked by the 33mb/s that these drives tend to default to. you should check in the bios and windows to see if udma mode 5 is enabled on the channel that your drive is on
also you should make sure that DMA is enabled as this gives your system an additional boost in certain circumstances.
i changed from an oem 7200rpm drive to a 40gb 7200rpm wd drive with the 8mb cache. my machine went into warp factor nine and my defrag times are measured in seconds and less rather than minutes. also my boot time in windows 2000 notorious for being slow go from about 1 minute to under 10 seconds which was what blew me away origionally
seriously though if you run both a 7200 rpm disk and a 5400 rpm disk side by side , wont the faster disk be limited to the speed of the lower one?
running win xp home how do i check if DMA is enabled? and what brand of disk was it that you got?
that should answer your question about DMA.
its in my post but you might have missed it its a western digital (wd in my post or WD might have helped)
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.