 |
 |
Which is faster - 2.5" HD @ 5400 RPM w/ 16MB cache or 7200 RPM with 8MB cache?
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
Need to add a portable hard drive. Will install in a mini FireWire case, probably w/ Oxford 911 chipset. 60GB is ample space. Performance is important, but it will be moved between two different desktop machines, so a 3.5" solution + power cord would be very cumbersome.
Several 2.5" options exist, which is good. I've seen two interesting drives:
[copied from Other World Computing]
•60.0GB Hitachi/IBM Travelstar 7K60 ***7200RPM** 8MB Data Buffer ATA/6 9.5mm UltraSlim 2.5" NoteBook Drive.
•60.0GB Toshiba 5400RPM 9.5MM SuperSlim Notebook Drive with LARGE 16MB Data buffer! (TOSMK6022GAX)
The 7200 rpm drive is about $60 more than the 5400 rpm model ($259 vs. $199).
Is the 7200 rpm model going to be significantly faster than the 5400 rpm + 16MB cache? Probably READ speeds will favor the 7200 rpm drive. How about WRITE speeds?
|
|

|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Transatlantic flight, first class, third row, aisle seat
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not a definite answer to your question, but something I stumbled over when having a look at those 7200rpm 2.5" drives.
(For cache size: I know there's a difference in performance between 2 MB and 8 MB, but how big is the difference between 8 MB and 16 MB in everyday use? Guess it depends on the average file size you use)
|
|
- What is your nationality?
- I'm a drunkard. That makes me a citizen of the world.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks for the link. Looks like the 7200RPM 2.5's are about equivalent to a 5400RPM desktop drive.
Very helpful.
|
|

|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Transatlantic flight, first class, third row, aisle seat
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have to admit I was not aware of the fact that there are any 2.5's out there at 7200! When I got my 40gig Travelstar 5400 that was one of the fastest drives out there - and that was merely a couple of months back 
But I was really impressed by the perfomance improvements the small drives are making. Looks like I'll have to take my iBook apart again in a couple of months.
Glad the article was useful!
|
|
- What is your nationality?
- I'm a drunkard. That makes me a citizen of the world.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 72k 8MB cache and the 54k 16MB cache drives were compared with each other in tests at barefeats.com. The 72k won by a wide margin.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 72k won by a wide margin.
Wow. A 72,000 RPM hard drive. Cool. 
just messin' with ya.
|
|

|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Differences in cache size are WAY overrated. The rotational speed and areal density are vastly more important in determining drive speed.
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd choose the 7K60. The buffer is only useful if the next thing you need to read is in it, and it frequently won't be.
|
|
OS X: Where software installation doesn't require wizards with shields.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Exton, PA
Status:
Offline
|
|
In one of my Compaq Laptops I tried both the Toshiba 60gb 16mb 5400rpm and the Hitachi 60gb 8mb 7200rpm and the 7200rpm was noticebly faster in day to day usage..
For some reason...probably not speed related but build related the 7200 was quieter.
The Toshiba went into an external enclosure.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
