I hope this is the right place to ask this.
I'm upgrading an older laptop's hard disk. I'm wondering if the speed (and increased sound) of a 7200 rpm drive will make a difference. Its a 1Ghz PIII running a BX chipst (EIDE, I don't think its ATA) and will be running Win2k and linux.
I've been reading some reviews on newegg.com and have seen some good deals on 7200 rpm drives, but their reviewers typically complain about loud noise when compared to a 5400rpm drive.
The 5400 rpm drives are less expensive, and thus I can buy more storage for the same money. But if a 7200 rpm drive will make a significant enough difference, I'll buy it instead (I've got a second disk bay on the laptop for future storage anyway).
So... on a mediocre system from back in the day, will a 7200 rpm drive make a noticable performance difference? Or am I better off with a bigger, quieter, cheaper 5400 rpm disk?
Thanks.
5200 or 7200?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
"EIDE, I don't think its ATA"
EIDE = IDE = ATA = PATA
"7200rpm hard drives typically consume more power than 5400rpm hard drives."
Typically a bit but not much. Interface type means much more. For a desktop drive, it doesn't much matter whether it uses 7 or 8 watts but if it's 0.5 watt for PATA versus 1.5 watt for SATA then the difference is obvious: SATA consumes +200% more energy (or PATA saves 67% which ever way you like to think about it).
But interface type is usually overlooked as many enthusiasts are willing to blame mechanical characteristics instead of electrical. They blame high rpm and HDDs in general. It's just some sort of emotional reaction towards "low-tech" spinning disk solution vs. transistors.
Of course there's the fact that laptops that have IDE are designed to work with IDE heat outputs where as those laptops which come from factory as SATA are designed to more effectively cool the HDD. IDE vs. SATA doesn't much matter in upgrading because you don't have a choise there. When choosing a new laptop, IDE might prove better in this aspect. When choosing a laptop HDD for desktop, I would (personally) favour SATA due to easier connectivity without adapter because cooling is usually more than adequate.
I think rpm is quite irrelevant with laptop sized HDDs when it comes to power consumption, especially on idle. I would consider price, noise and performance more important aspects than some 0.2 watt difference. Be also aware that there's significant differences between manufacturers.
link to SR performance database (incl. power consumption figures)
Also see: http://www.storagereview.com/HTS722020K9A00.sr because while 7K200 has been reviewed it's not yet entered into performance database.
EIDE = IDE = ATA = PATA
"7200rpm hard drives typically consume more power than 5400rpm hard drives."
Typically a bit but not much. Interface type means much more. For a desktop drive, it doesn't much matter whether it uses 7 or 8 watts but if it's 0.5 watt for PATA versus 1.5 watt for SATA then the difference is obvious: SATA consumes +200% more energy (or PATA saves 67% which ever way you like to think about it).
But interface type is usually overlooked as many enthusiasts are willing to blame mechanical characteristics instead of electrical. They blame high rpm and HDDs in general. It's just some sort of emotional reaction towards "low-tech" spinning disk solution vs. transistors.
Of course there's the fact that laptops that have IDE are designed to work with IDE heat outputs where as those laptops which come from factory as SATA are designed to more effectively cool the HDD. IDE vs. SATA doesn't much matter in upgrading because you don't have a choise there. When choosing a new laptop, IDE might prove better in this aspect. When choosing a laptop HDD for desktop, I would (personally) favour SATA due to easier connectivity without adapter because cooling is usually more than adequate.
I think rpm is quite irrelevant with laptop sized HDDs when it comes to power consumption, especially on idle. I would consider price, noise and performance more important aspects than some 0.2 watt difference. Be also aware that there's significant differences between manufacturers.
link to SR performance database (incl. power consumption figures)
Also see: http://www.storagereview.com/HTS722020K9A00.sr because while 7K200 has been reviewed it's not yet entered into performance database.
It depends what drive you get. I recently checked this and was rather underwhelmed.tucansam wrote:I'm mostly curious about the performance benefit.
This StorageReview of the newest Hitachi 7K200 shows an interesting thing: the 7K200 does significantly beat every 5400 rpm drive in the pack, but the other 7200 rpm drives beat them, but not by as much. Unless you can take the price premium of the 7K200, you won't gain much. Note the 250 GB 5400 rpm Scorpio, which regularly ends up faster than the 7K100. Platter density is the great equalizer.