NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Notebook Reviews › 5400 RPM vs 7200 RPM Examined
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

5400 RPM vs 7200 RPM Examined - Page 3

post #41 of 54
3/14/05 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomman
mikemex - for incremental backup software I have been using SyncBack for about a year and it is mint. I have not found anything that is as reliable or consitenly good as this software.

They just released SyncBackSE which is $15US. Give the demo a try.

- I am not affiliated with them in any way - just relieved to have quality backup software that does not cost a arm and a leg.

http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/syncback-hub.html
Also look at the maxtor one-touch external drives. It's probably not as sophisticated or dependable as SyncBack, but it's simple and portable.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 54
3/17/05 at 8:45am
I would treat the results with a grain of salt in this case because if you're using SiSoft Sandra to benchmark hard drives, it will only be valid comparable results if both harddrives were completely empty when you benchmarked them.

If the drives are partly full or fragmented, this will definitely affect the result as sisoft seems to benchmark by creating a file in the filesystem(so having FAT32 or NTFS also affects the results), and if the filesystem is fragmented,etc this will skew the results.

I myself have seen this behaviour when I first tried to benchmark my 7k60 when it first arrived and it ended up with a really high score. Benchmarked it again in a month's time, after it had been filled up and fragmented and the scores were really low. Re-imaged the drive to when I first got it, and the scores went back up again.

So if you really want to benchmark the drives properly, use a computer that can mount 2 harddisks(one for OS, and benchmarking software, and the other as the test candidate), use the same computer to benchmark both harddisks, format the hd to same filesystem type(NTFS or FAT32) before each test and see what you get. Right now, I think there are two many variables to say that this is a conclusive result.

just my two cents worth
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 54
3/18/05 at 12:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
There's no such thing as centrifugal force
Ah but there is, if you are making measurements from a rotating reference frame
-m omega cross omega cross v or maybe 2m, or maybe thats coriolis force, oh screw it im on spring break.

At any rate, I enjoyed the 7200 rpm hitachi drive in my M60, got it in the M70, and ordered it to replace the 4200 rpm slowpoke that is coming in my sony FS.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 54
4/25/05 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ofelas
I use my primary OS (XP Pro) on a 7K60, and play around with Win 2003 Server on a 5400RPM Seagate 100GB drive...the Seagate seems faster than the 7200RPm HGST unit, but that is likely the low overhead of Win 2003 Server.
Well, not necessarily. Look at this SiSoft Sandra result - not the results for my own 60G 5400 drive, in orange, but the comparisons. They show a 100G 5400 drive beating a faster spinning 60G 7200 drive.
LL
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 54
4/25/05 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLilley
Well, not necessarily. Look at this SiSoft Sandra result - not the results for my own 60G 5400 drive, in orange, but the comparisons. They show a 100G 5400 drive beating a faster spinning 60G 7200 drive.
19MB/s seems pretty low for a 7K60; mine usually benchmark at ~30MB/s as measured by HDTach.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 54
6/24/05 at 5:07am
Notebook drives operating at 7200 rpms are more frugal with power and more generous with fluid dynamics than their desktop counterparts, reliability according to Tom's hardware, Anandtech and other sites is not an issue. These sights also indicate the performance gap between 5400 80 gig travelstar drive and it's 7200rpm counterpart are not as wide as the same drives would be in a desktop system, remember the latters are still smaller in notebook drives. the 7200 notebook drive is also designed to create less friction.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 54
6/24/05 at 8:00pm
Let's take it from economical view point, here's some hard drive prices today:

SAMSUNG Spinpoint M MP0603H 80GB 5400 RPM Notebook Hard Drive - OEM 8MB cache:
$82.00(NewEgg)

TOSHIBA Super Slimline MK6026GAX (HDD2194) 60GB 5400 RPM Notebook Hard Drive - OEM 16MB cache:
$113.00 (NewEgg)

HITACHI/IBM TRAVELSTAR 7K60 #08K0939 2.5 60.0 GB 9.5MM 7200rpm UATA100 60gb 8 MB Cache:
$169.99 (http://www.outpost.com or Fry's Electronics)

Ignoring vendor reputations and such, and looking strictly only at storage space, RPMs, and cache features-- Does it make sense to pay $88 more for a marginal increase from 5400RPM to 7200RPM? I suppose the hard-core gamer or the avid video-editor could justify the cost.

It seems to make more sense to plunk down $31 more for an increase in cache size (8MB to 16MB). This would help, if my limited understanding is correct, with virtual memory performance if you're switching back and forth between multiple applications, which is what the majority of people seem to do with their laptops anyhow.

Anyone know why 7200RPM notebook hard drives haven't become more mainstream or why there hasn't been an 80GB version? Are manufactures hitting some physical limitations or rising costs(?) At the time I bought my i9200, NewEgg had the Travelstar 7K60 at about $145, but now they don't sell it, and now other vendors have it at $170 and above! WTF?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 54
6/24/05 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemex
Man...

Solid state drives? They may work as a bootable device for recovery and such, but as a hard drive they are definetly a NO-NO. A regular hard drive must withstand millions of write/read operations in it's useful life (swap file is a good example), while a flash device usually starts to fail (produce corruption and such) at about 5,000-10,000 cycles.
<Vader>

They are your destiny

</Vader>

Solid state drives have been around for awhile, they are terribly expensive and until recently didn't have very much capacity. Samsung has been working with NAND based flash memory as a replacement for traditional notebook and other small form factor drives. They look like hard drives, use 5% of the power of your traditional drive, take up half the space and offer roughly 150% performance of current drives. The one big downside is still capacity, currently limited to about 16GB.

This is the pretty much the same technology that is being incorporated into hybrid notebook drives that incorporate a very large flash buffer between the drives mechanisims and the rest of the PC reducing the amount of time the drive platters need to spin to less then a minuet every half hour in typical use.

Edit: heh just noticed there was a little thread necromancy going on here
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 54
6/27/05 at 12:13am
HD benchmarks are essentially meaningless. This has been WELL proven. What I'm reading for is the user's reaction: which SEEMED faster?
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 54
6/27/05 at 12:16am
The faster drive was the one I paid more for
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 54
6/27/05 at 2:50am
Having used all speeds, 7200 is most definitely fastest.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 54
6/30/05 at 12:59am
If you really want to know about 5400vs 7200rpm hard drives, I used them both as matter of fact I have them both.

I used to have acer laptop and windows was installed from ghost cd, everytime when I used 100gb 5400 rmp hard drive installation was faster than 7200rpm 60gb hard drive from hitachi

Don't really know why but once hitachi drive started to fill up with stuff it appeared slower
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 54
6/30/05 at 7:41am
Both Hard drives were ran under Inspiron 9300 alos if matter to anybody under 3dmark03 and 3dmark05 scores were the same


Reply
Reply
post #54 of 54
6/30/05 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by odawg
Let's take it from economical view point, here's some hard drive prices today:

SAMSUNG Spinpoint M MP0603H 80GB 5400 RPM Notebook Hard Drive - OEM 8MB cache:
$82.00(NewEgg)

TOSHIBA Super Slimline MK6026GAX (HDD2194) 60GB 5400 RPM Notebook Hard Drive - OEM 16MB cache:
$113.00 (NewEgg)

HITACHI/IBM TRAVELSTAR 7K60 #08K0939 2.5 60.0 GB 9.5MM 7200rpm UATA100 60gb 8 MB Cache:
$169.99 (http://www.outpost.com or Fry's Electronics)

Ignoring vendor reputations and such, and looking strictly only at storage space, RPMs, and cache features-- Does it make sense to pay $88 more for a marginal increase from 5400RPM to 7200RPM? I suppose the hard-core gamer or the avid video-editor could justify the cost.

It seems to make more sense to plunk down $31 more for an increase in cache size (8MB to 16MB). This would help, if my limited understanding is correct, with virtual memory performance if you're switching back and forth between multiple applications, which is what the majority of people seem to do with their laptops anyhow.

Anyone know why 7200RPM notebook hard drives haven't become more mainstream or why there hasn't been an 80GB version? Are manufactures hitting some physical limitations or rising costs(?) At the time I bought my i9200, NewEgg had the Travelstar 7K60 at about $145, but now they don't sell it, and now other vendors have it at $170 and above! WTF?
I wouldn't pay 170 got a 7200rpm drive, but when I got min it was only $120-130ish.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dell Notebook Reviews
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Notebook Forums › Dell Notebook Reviews › 5400 RPM vs 7200 RPM Examined