| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 14305 | 2002-01-04 07:33:00 | 7200 vs. 5400 rpm drives - real-world performance | Guest (0) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 29772 | 2002-01-04 07:33:00 | Hi Y'All I'm hoping to buy myself a new computer sometime around March/April, so it's time for me to start doing my research to make sure I get exactly what I want. This is the first of several hardware questions I'd like to put to the 'panel'. Does anyone have direct experience of the difference in performance between 5400 and 7200 rpm drives? On the face of it, it would seem obvious that faster must be better, but reading through my back issues of PC World I found an article (April 2001), whose charts showed some 5400s running faster than some 7200s (in both types of task tested). So it would seem it's not a given that a 7200 will always outperform a 5400. Perhaps the faster drives have more errors to compensate for. Also, does anyone know if the slower drives are expected to last longer? |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29773 | 2002-01-04 08:32:00 | any chance you can post some details of what drives where tested and results?? i seem to be missing that month mag. a good 5k would equal a poor 7k one. i did some testing a while ago when a mate bought a new drive. a new 5k ata100 vers my old faithfull barracuta2 7k ata66. (new cheape drive vers a one generation old top of the line drive) burst speed aside(ata100 vers 66) the drives were identical except for the seek speed. the old 7k had a faster seek speed. at the end of the day its all about matching the hardware to how you use your comp and of course your price tag. 5k are good for bulk storage and everyday tasks while 7k are far better for the more the gamers and heavy multimedia useage. just remember harddrives are one of the slowest devices in your comp. i can't see the point of buliding a top end machine then slowing it down with a cheapo hard drive. mmmm.tweak'e's rant for the nite ;-) |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29774 | 2002-01-04 09:44:00 | Sure, Tweak'e Go here to see the chart: www.pcworld.com Thanks for your comments. As regards my budget: It's not quite 'money is no object', but I am willing to pay to get good components. My existing computer will be coming up to six years old by the time it's replaced and I want my next one to last me that long as well, so I'm looking for performance that will 'future-proof' me to some degree. |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29775 | 2002-01-05 06:38:00 | Big difference. As long as they have the same cache. I have compared the 5400 maxtor/quantum with the maxtor/quantum (most common drive at the moment), the 7200 leaves the 5400 in it dust. Reliability is also a issue, aperantly the 5400 are a much more reliable drives. |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29776 | 2002-01-06 11:30:00 | The important thing is to balance the motherboard with the Hard Drive. there is no performance gain running a high speed HDD with a slow Motherboard | Guest (0) | ||
| 29777 | 2002-01-06 11:30:00 | The important thing is to balance the motherboard with the Hard Drive. there is no performance gain running a high speed HDD with a slow Motherboard | Guest (0) | ||
| 29778 | 2002-01-08 02:59:00 | I have both in this very machine and not only is the 7200 rpm drive noticeably quicker, it's nearly silent compared to its sibling. I benchmarked both drives as boot drives, one at a time on this PC and was impressed at the improvement over the 5400 version...around 50% on the Wintune benchmark and 15-20% better in photoshop open and save. The cost differential between the two is something like $30 for the same capacity. Would I go for the 7200 rpm model? Too right. |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29779 | 2002-01-08 10:35:00 | Thanks Andy. Appreciate your input. |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29780 | 2002-01-08 10:41:00 | Thanks for the tip, PJ. I'll keep that in mind. |
Guest (0) | ||
| 29781 | 2002-01-08 10:42:00 | Thanks for the info, Iain. Cheers John |
Guest (0) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||