Manik Sood said:
...I don't know should I replace the hard disk for better performance or not?
HDtune and HDspeed are decent programs for assessing HDD performance.
Both programs can easily show you the performance impact from such things as excessive read errors (which can degrade as the drive ages), USB v SATA v IDE connection, 5400rpm v 7200rpm, HOW you format a partition (e.g. whether you format using the default 4KB cluster size or use 16KB or 32KB), WHERE on the disk platter the head assembly is currently located (for example HDD sequential read performance might be 120MB/sec in the first 5% of the platter but degrades to 30MB/sec by the time the disk is filled up and the head is near the other end of the platter...and that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work...everything might be fine even though it might look suspicious), and so on.
By the way, a common situation might be...
Because the drive head assembly's physical location on the platter can make a very fast disk seem slower than an actually much slower disk, the user could misinterpret the results and make a mistake by concluding there is something wrong with the higher performance disk drive when there is NOTHING WRONG. (If I didn't explain this well enough, please let me know and I'll try to clarify).
I've started taking performance 'snapshots' when I first receive a drive, and can compare the initial performance to the drive's performance as it ages.
-HDspeed's WRITE test is a destructive low-level test. You will lose data on the tested partition and (at the last version I used) you have to reformat the partition after using HDspeed's WRITE test. HDtune uses a high-level (Windows-file based) test and is thus non-destructive. Both HDtune and HDspeed's default tests are a non-destructive READ test. And, as far as I'm concerned, READ tests are probably all you really need in 95% of situations when you are investigating a possible disk drive performance degradation problem.
The reason I like HDspeed for SOME testing is that you can simply instruct the program WHERE on the partition you want the test to physically start (e.g. at the 50% point, 30% point, etc). This can save a lot of time if you want to test specific sections of the disk. Otherwise for HDtune, you have to pre-create multiple partitions of sizes that are consistent with the physical locations you want testing to occur if you want easily to know WHERE on the disk you are testing.
There is some other point I was going to make, but the painkillers I'm currently taking fuzzed it up before I could type it in. If I remember, I'll edit this post...
Edit to add...here it is--
HDtune is particularly good for visually showing when a disk has physical problems: e.g. read errors, head/track alignment, "high fly writes", and so on. These might show up in the performance graph as sudden somewhat consistly located dips in the performance graph's continuous line, whereas the impact of tracking-related errors might best show up in the "Access Time" scatter plot and higher than expected access time value (e.g. it might be quite a bit longer than spec or longer that it was 2 months ago). The appearance of the scatter plot also matters. A narrow well-defined pattern shows consistent drive operation. If the scatter plot is however "all over the place" and/or if some "loner" datapoints wildly diverge from the "band", you are likely seeing tracking and/or HDA electronics issues. Note: such can be aggravated by drive temperatures.