You can see above that the basic SATA SSD I've got is about 3 times faster for sequential reads and writes.
Solid state SSDs are just fundamentally faster because of this. This takes over 1/100 of a second which is forever to a computer. These show how quickly the drive can get more normal sized chunks of data that are needed by applications and today even cheap SATA SSDs are running at a whole other level compared to harddrives.īecause of their mechanical nature harddrives have to physically position a sensor at the correct track before they can read a chunk of data. The numbers that really make a difference are the 'random' read and write figures. You might look at NVME SSDs and drool over the 3500MB/s sequential figures but those will rarely appear in day to day use unless you work on raw 4k video. Cheap SSDs fundamentally change the game.
I'd argue that today any question about the "fastest" harddrive is meaningless because they're all slow, it's like picking the fastest snail. Of course the speed difference between my drive and your drive is actually irrelevant. Spinning the platter faster (7200 rotations per minute instead of 5400 rotations per minute) means you can read more data in the same amount of time but you can also achieve this by increasing how much data is available to be read in a single rotation. A HDD works by spinning a platter and reading the data as it passes by a sensor positioned at a specific track. You can see that despite being a "slower" drive it is unquestionably faster and that's because of data density**. To illustrate my point here is the same benchmark which I just ran on my 5400rpm* 4TB WD Red drive. I'm assuming you were under the impression that 7200rpm was "fast" (or is it feeling slower now in which case go to the very end of my post for advance) which was only ever true when compared to 5400rpm drives and even then the margin was not only small but highly dependent on the drive's density. Yes, those scores are perfectly normal for that kind of drive.
0 kommentar(er)
