5400RPM SATA vs 7200RPM what's the difference?

hi ^^

if you compare a ATA 133 hdd 7200rpm to SATA hdd 5400 there's 2 main things to consider.

1- ATA transfer from the drive to the motherboard @ 133mb/s and SATA @ 150mb/s
2- 7200rpm has a significant lower seek/write times than the 5400, which means that it finds, reads and writes faster than the 5400 rpm

as for temps, I don't know... maybe someone that knows will post but I don't think temps differences between the 2 are very different.

Basically, if you plan to use your comp with loads of games that uses a lot the hdd, 7200 will quicken the load times. Any application that use a lot the hdd will profit from the 7200rpm hdd.

Lot of people thinks that SATA is like the god of hard drives but in fact, in a laptop platform, it's not such a good thing because there's no 2.5" SATA 7200 or even as the raptor's 10k rpm. THOSE desktop hard drives worth it... but a 5400 sata in a lappy will probably be more a bottleneck for seeks/reads/writes than anything else.

it's not the 17mb/s more on the information transfer from the hdd to the mobo that will make the difference in my opinion... SATA is useless for a performance lappy... now that is XD. if they launch the Raptors 10k rpm SATA 2.5" drives in a lappy, welcome performances!!

I hope it helps ^^

no prob ^^

btw, if you use 2 identicals hdds, you really should use raid 0 stripping! that will quicken even more your hdd access. People with Raid0 and a 3ghz can load windows under 20 secs O.O so it definitly worth it since it's free performance. it doesn't cost you space or money anyways ^^

oh yeah... forgot about that one.

so there's a price for this kind of performance... but then that's what backups are for ^^

yeah.. so? if u had 1 120 gig and it gos.. u'd lose everything.. so if 1 60 gig in a RAID 0 gos u lose everything.. not that big a deal.. how often does a HD crash?

Non raid- data ABCDEF all gets wrote on to the drive..

RAID 0 data ACE gets wrote to one drive data BDF gets wrote to the other drive.. so potentually it can double your read/write times.. as one drive is writing half the data and drive 2 is writeing the other half at the same time..it also combines the drives.. so when u go to MY COMPUTER and go to drive C all your data is there.. u dont have to go between drive C and D to find what data is where as u would with a non raid 0 configuration

of course this is from doing alot of research on this.. as i dont have 2 Hard drives in my computer. so i could be wrong

Read the review of the 9860... (http://notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=49132) They tested two 60gb ATA's to two 80gb SATAs and used Raid 0. They found that the 80gb SATA's come up on top by a little bit. Freakizoid: If you plan on going the raid 0 route (which it doesn't seem like you will) go with the SATA's because they work a lot better with raid 0. I just got my 9860 and I have dual 60 gb SATAs with Raid 0 and so far they have been phenomenal. There haven’t been any tests yet to compare dual 60gb ATA's to dual 60gb SATAs with Raid 0. I have heard "speculation" that the SATA's would still come up on top. In the end, I doubt you would ever feel the difference so it's not that big of a deal and I opted just to save a few dollars and go with the SATAs. If you don't plan on getting a Raid configuration, then definitely go with the 7200's because they work much faster as independent drives than the 5400s do.

yeah. so if there is any data u care about u back it up anyways.. with or without RAID 0

it works as Ghostbane said.

however, using raid0 without backups is silly because if the array dies, bye bye gbs of your pr0n

but like Ghostbane said: "how often does a HD crash?".

None dies on me in the last decade

But I can understand someone that fears this kind of bad luck and don't want to take the chances or plainly don't want to take time to play with backups.

edit: nice to know that RAID SATA is more powerful than RAID ATA ^^ *take a mental note of this one*

Most of this is true, except the read write analysis. Since the data gets split between 2 drives the read/write times are improved because you (the computer that is) is able to use the combined spin rates of both drives improving...and get this because its important... THE SUSTAINED READ/WRITE RATE. Also being that it is a SATA interface it allows for higher maximum overall throughput.

Oh, well in that case go with the 2 SATA 80G.

There is another factor for me at least which requires me to have ATA, that is, if the lappy goes down for whatever reason I can take the drives out and still use them in my external housings to retrieve data (which I use everyday) and send the unit back with another ATA drive temporarily. I can't afford to lose time by losing my drives for machine repair or whatever and daily backups are not always practical or quick.

Another factor is that the data on my drive is work related and cannot fall into others hands, my bosses would be extremely unhappy if I were to send a lappy in for repair with all that data on disk. I can use and replace ATA whatever happens because I already have lot's of drives and housings, SATA I can't. Besides, I already own one 60Gig 7200 ATA drive so I only need to order one.

Raid is also out for the same reason, I need to be able to access the drives from any situation, RAID would screw that for me as I don't have any way to access an array without the specific laptop to run it so I'm pretty much stuck with a pair of standard ATA drives.

Just something to ponder on.