Can adjusting partition slow down PC?

[firehawk]

My computer is noticeably worse in performance and I am not sure why.
Bought new in 2013 it cut through AVCHD footage easily. Now is sometimes stutters playing the timeline and seems to struggle. Not sure what to do.

The only significant changes I have made are:
I hardware cloned (with a drive cloning device) my c:\ from a 256GB SSD to a 500GB SSD of similar speed. But since the new drive was larger it caused some unallocated space. So I bought this Acronis Disk director 12
http://www.amazon.com/Acronis-DD-12-MB-RT-W-EN-Disk-Director-12/dp/B00KX75WZS
and adjusted the partition to allow my C:\ to use most of it, while leaving about 40GB for scratch.

I still use the same 3- 7200RPM SATA3 drives for media, though one of them is about 90% full now.
Not sure what to do. It's a little frustrating.
Here's my specs:
i7 6 core, 32GB RAM, GTX 780 3GB, WIN7 64 Pro
Using Adobe CS6 mostly for video work and drivers from 2013

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

My computer is noticeably worse in performance and I am not sure why.
Bought new in 2013 it cut through AVCHD footage easily. Now is sometimes stutters playing the timeline and seems to struggle. Not sure what to do.

The only significant changes I have made are:
I hardware cloned (with a drive cloning device) my c:\ from a 256GB SSD to a 500GB SSD of similar speed. But since the new drive was larger it caused some unallocated space. So I bought this Acronis Disk director 12
http://www.amazon.com/Acronis-DD-12-MB-RT-W-EN-Disk-Director-12/dp/B00KX75WZS
and adjusted the partition to allow my C:\ to use most of it, while leaving about 40GB for scratch.

I still use the same 3- 7200RPM SATA3 drives for media, though one of them is about 90% full now.
Not sure what to do. It's a little frustrating.
Here's my specs:
i7 6 core, 32GB RAM, GTX 780 3GB, WIN7 64 Pro
Using Adobe CS6 mostly for video work and drivers from 2013

I'm not all that familiar with Windows... but there is a disk process called fragmentation, which may lead to slowing down disk access. As one uses a disk, makes, deletes, changes sizes of the files, the file system the blocks allocated to a file may not be 'near' each other than the disk head starts thrashing between the scattered blocks. That for disks with a physical head...

I've not kept up on solid state devices, by they also may read chunks of the memory, say 64k bytes 'segments', rather than just 'random access' specific 1024 byte blocks, that makes up the drive, and have a similar sort of 'thrashing', albeit not 'physical', say in order to read 10 blocks of a file it has to access 5 regions of the 'memory' area, so there's time to setup for the read, and 5 of them would be longer than if the blocks were close.

There was in the olden days a disk defragmentor tool, that I recall using to advantage when I was forced to use a Windows box.

Unix/linux/MacOSX have tended to do better on disk performances, because these systems were intended to support massive disk drive sets, and large numbers of users. So the filesystems have tended to be more efficient... not that one couldn't fragment a Mac OS X drive... I've just not had that as a problem in quite a while...

If you copy 'binary wise' a disk, you do nothing about the file -> disk blocks situation... massive copy from one disk to otherwise empty file system would possibly work, as as the files as they are created would have disk blocks 'close' to each other allocated as the copy proceeds.

But the way various hidden files work, etc. only the byte by byte copy will clone a working disk in many cases... unless the tool on is using knows how to wend through a file structure and copy 'everything'...