|
|
5400 faster then 7200?
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Right here
Status:
Offline
|
|
ok i read the article someone posted but its not making any sense in my head...is the limitation of the drive in the 15" not really that bad? is the 5400 apples offering faster then the 7200 they where offering before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
this concerns me as well.
the original post was a response to my concern;
as an audio pro, i want to be able to record & mix on the mbp, without always being tied to an external drive.
consensus among my peeps is...the 5400rpm drive will be fine (as long as i dont try to record 48 tracks of an orchestra or something...)
but disappointed the 7200rpm drive option isnt there in the 15"...
other thoughts??
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
i posted the article, and from what i've gathered from it, it depends on the manufacturer of the drives.
My current non-stock macbook came with an 80gb seagate drive that runs at 5400rpm, but my first stock macbook came with a 60gb toshiba drive.
so it really depends on the manufacturer of the drive that apple uses.
|
Mac User since Summer 2005 (started with G4 mini bought from macnn forums!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Right here
Status:
Offline
|
|
but its current 120Gb 5400 is faster/just as fast as the Original 100Gb 7200?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by MattJeff
but its current 120Gb 5400 is faster/just as fast as the Original 100Gb 7200?
7200revolutions per minute is faster than 5400revolutions per minute; it just is.
i dont see how it can be any other way, regardless of manufacturer.
unless something else in the HD (cache, for instance) acts as a bottlneck?
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by fisherKing
7200revolutions per minute is faster than 5400revolutions per minute; it just is.
i dont see how it can be any other way, regardless of manufacturer.
unless something else in the HD (cache, for instance) acts as a bottlneck?
7200 is indeed faster than 5400. But if the sectors on the 5400 are denser does that not mean more data is read per revolution of the drive platter? If so, then I suppose a 5400 *may* be able to move the same amount of data per second, but I am not expert.
|
MBP - 2.33GHz C2D, 3GB RAM, 256MB VRAM, 160GB HD
PB - 1.5GHz G4, 2GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 80GB HD
PM - Dual 1GHzG4, 1.5GB RAM, NVidia GForce 3, 2x 80 GB HD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by wingdo
7200 is indeed faster than 5400. But if the sectors on the 5400 are denser does that not mean more data is read per revolution of the drive platter? If so, then I suppose a 5400 *may* be able to move the same amount of data per second, but I am not expert.
hmmm...am only more confused.
if i am driving a car 7200 miles per hour with lindsay lohan, wont i get farther faster than if were driving 5400 miles per hour with homer simpson in the car??
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
blabba5555555555555555555555555555555555555
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Think of it like this:
You're going 7,200 mph. In one hour, you'll pass 7,200 mile markers on the highway.
Now, pretend the mile markers are actually much closer together, let's say only a half mile apart. Going 5,400 mph, you'll pass 10,800 mile markers in one hour. In this scenario, the mile markers are "denser".
This is one possibility of how a 5400rpm drive can be faster than a 7200rpm one. The data on the driver is denser, so that more data can be read in a single turn of the drive. Just think of it as more efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jamil5454
Think of it like this:
You're going 7,200 mph. In one hour, you'll pass 7,200 mile markers on the highway.
Now, pretend the mile markers are actually much closer together, let's say only a half mile apart. Going 5,400 mph, you'll pass 10,800 mile markers in one hour. In this scenario, the mile markers are "denser".
This is one possibility of how a 5400rpm drive can be faster than a 7200rpm one. The data on the driver is denser, so that more data can be read in a single turn of the drive. Just think of it as more efficient.
seriously, this is where i am lost: WHY is the data denser on the 5400rpm drive? or is it that on SOME drives, the data is denser? and wouldnt that relate to size? (ie 100 vs 120 gigs...)
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by fisherKing
seriously, this is where i am lost: WHY is the data denser on the 5400rpm drive? or is it that on SOME drives, the data is denser? and wouldnt that relate to size? (ie 100 vs 120 gigs...)
Data is not denser on a 5400 rmp drive over a 7200 rpm drive.
Data is denser on a 160GB drive than on a 120GB drive.
There are the same number of platters on the 160GB drive than on the 120GB drive. I do not know if this was reached by even thinner tracks (i.e. more tracks on each platter) or by stuffing more data into a sector.
I "upgraded" the hard drive in my powerbook from the stock 80GB 5400 Toshiba drive to a 60GB 7200 IBM drive. XBench reports SLOWER performance for reads / writes. The difference is nominal so I am not opening this beast up again especially since my C2D was ordered the day they were announced.
|
MBP - 2.33GHz C2D, 3GB RAM, 256MB VRAM, 160GB HD
PB - 1.5GHz G4, 2GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 80GB HD
PM - Dual 1GHzG4, 1.5GB RAM, NVidia GForce 3, 2x 80 GB HD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
I got the 100GB 7200 RPM drive in my rev A MBP. When transferring large data chunks there is a clear benefit over 5400 RPM drives.
MacBook Pro - 5400rpm
I was quite baffled that Apple removed the 7200 RPM option from the 15". Interestingly, they left it around on the 17".
Be that as it may, it's clear that the 120GB 5400 RPM is another drive than the 100GB 7200 RPM. And it's also clear that they come from different manufacturers. It is not impossible that performance-wise they came so close Apple just went for capacity over RPMs. Until we get new benchmarks, I don't think we'll be able to fully understand this.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Up north
Status:
Offline
|
|
Besides pure read/write, there is also the issue of seek time. Regardless of data density, the average seek time is going to be better on a drive that spins faster.
So, probably in the grand scheme of things, the 7200 is faster. However, it's my gut feeling that the 5400 isn't as far off as the RPM would suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The single most important aspect of a hard drive that determines the speed of data transfer is areal density.
"Areal density, also sometimes called bit density, refers to the amount of data that can be stored in a given amount of hard disk platter "real estate". Since disk platters surfaces are of course two-dimensional, areal density is a measure of the number of bits that can be stored in a unit of area. It is usually expressed in bits per square inch (BPSI)."
So yes if a 5400 RPM drive has a larger BPSI then a 7200 RPM drive, the 5400 RPM drive will be faster. In fact rotational speed has very little to do with the data transfer rate.
Also, seek times are also going to be better on a drive with a greater BPSI areal density.
So when comparing drives look for greater BPSI areal density, not rotational speeds.
Areal Density
|
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status:
Offline
|
|
Weirdly enoguh, the 17" has a 7200 option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by skyman
The single most important aspect of a hard drive that determines the speed of data transfer is areal density.
"Areal density, also sometimes called bit density, refers to the amount of data that can be stored in a given amount of hard disk platter "real estate". Since disk platters surfaces are of course two-dimensional, areal density is a measure of the number of bits that can be stored in a unit of area. It is usually expressed in bits per square inch (BPSI)."
So yes if a 5400 RPM drive has a larger BPSI then a 7200 RPM drive, the 5400 RPM drive will be faster. In fact rotational speed has very little to do with the data transfer rate.
Also, seek times are also going to be better on a drive with a greater BPSI areal density.
So when comparing drives look for greater BPSI areal density, not rotational speeds.
Areal Density
Thank you for finding a source when I was too lazy to do so at 1 in the morning.
|
MBP - 2.33GHz C2D, 3GB RAM, 256MB VRAM, 160GB HD
PB - 1.5GHz G4, 2GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 80GB HD
PM - Dual 1GHzG4, 1.5GB RAM, NVidia GForce 3, 2x 80 GB HD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apparently, the 160GB 5400 drives are using perpendicular storage (the 80Gb are doing both apparently, whatever that means). Perpendicular is more dense than longitudinal, so there is a real question wheather the 5400 perpendicular is faster at data access than the 7200 longitudinal since the head passes more blocks per turn.
|
"It's about time trees did something good insted of just standing there LIKE JERKS!" :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by shabbasuraj
7200>5400
end of story
This would be correct if the 5400 drive was only 100gb and made by the same manufacturer.
However the 160gb 5400 is 60% denser then the 100gb hard drive.
The 7200 spins 33% faster than a 5400 drive.
Everything else equal (manufacturer, cache..etc) the 5400 will be faster.
Add the perpendicular vs longitudinal storage and the 5400 will most definitely be faster.
I'm sure there are some situations where the 160gb 5400 would be a fraction slower than the 100gb 7200. However the extra 60gb is well worth a minor speed hit in a few limited situations.
BTW: My 2.33 15" just shipped today
|
-Toyin
13" MBA 1.8ghz i7
"It's all about the rims that ya got, and the rims that ya coulda had"
S.T. 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Where the heck are the reviews and benchmarks???
|
"It's about time trees did something good insted of just standing there LIKE JERKS!" :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Brazuca
Where the heck are the reviews and benchmarks???
Link #1
Link #2 (look at the graphs at the bottom)
These are older drives and comparing different manufacturers, but it demonstrates how a 5400rpm drive can hold it's own against a 7200rpm drive.
|
-Toyin
13" MBA 1.8ghz i7
"It's all about the rims that ya got, and the rims that ya coulda had"
S.T. 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Brazuca
Where the heck are the reviews and benchmarks???
I already linked to a BareFeats benchmark comparing the 5400 and 7200 RPM HDDs on the MBP. It's right above your post.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't know if i believe that a 5,400rpm will be faster than a 7,200rpm drive. If 100GB 7,200rpm were an option i bet some of those people would jump at getting the 7,200rpm drive who are saying that the 160GB drive is just as fast if not faster.
I wish that it were an option and i may change my hard drive when i get my MBP C2D if it does not void my warranty.
(
Last edited by rach; Oct 27, 2006 at 06:54 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by rach
I don't know if i believe that a 5,400rpm will be faster than a 7,200rpm drive. If 100GB 7,200rpm were an option i bet some of those people would jump at getting the 7,200rpm drive who are saying that the 160GB drive is just as fast if not faster.
I wish that it were an option and i may change my hard drive when i get my MBP C2D if it does not void my warranty.
i'm going to work with the internal drive, see how things go.
do some recording, see how logic (and reason, rewired) stands up.
obviously, if all is well, will NOT replace the drive.
but i realize that all the above facts & theories are not (necessarily) related to the specific drive in the mbp...
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
i think the 160 gig drive will be faster than the 120 though. a lot of the 160 drives are benchmarking really well because they are higher density.
i think tomshardware had some reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can definately see how a 200GB 4200rpm could be as fast or faster than a 100GB 7200rpm. I can't wait for some speed tests once they start showing up. I'd love to get that 200GB drive.
|
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
- Dictator George W. Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-02
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by rach
I don't know if i believe that a 5,400rpm will be faster than a 7,200rpm drive. If 100GB 7,200rpm were an option i bet some of those people would jump at getting the 7,200rpm drive who are saying that the 160GB drive is just as fast if not faster.
I wish that it were an option and i may change my hard drive when i get my MBP C2D if it does not void my warranty.
Why is this so hard to believe?
You have a car, top speed is 150mph
I have a car top, speed is 100mph
Who's going to win a rolling race? Seems simple enough, you will.
Wrong, because in this race you have to go 4 miles and I've got to go 2.
Similar analogy.
The head of the 5200rpm drive does not have to go as far because the data is more dense (closer together).
And to answer your question, I would still get the 160gb drive. I've got a 7200rpm drive in my 15" PB now and I could always swap, but there's only 4gb of disk space left on it and I'd prefer not having to off load data to my external hard drive.
In a few months there WILL be a 7200rpm drive that will be faster then the 160gb 5200 drive, but the 100gb is not it.
|
-Toyin
13" MBA 1.8ghz i7
"It's all about the rims that ya got, and the rims that ya coulda had"
S.T. 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Allston, MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow, such poor car analogies. Ever notice how some cars have 2 dials, MPH and RPM? That RPM means the same thing in cars as it does in disk drives, revolutions per minute. It doesn't say a thing about how fast the car (disk) is going, just how fast the motor is turning. If you're in 5th gear and your engine is turning 5400 RPM, it's a good bet you're moving faster than the guy in 2nd gear whose engine is turning 7200 RPM.
|
-- Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jasong
Wow, such poor car analogies. Ever notice how some cars have 2 dials, MPH and RPM? That RPM means the same thing in cars as it does in disk drives, revolutions per minute. It doesn't say a thing about how fast the car (disk) is going, just how fast the motor is turning. If you're in 5th gear and your engine is turning 5400 RPM, it's a good bet you're moving faster than the guy in 2nd gear whose engine is turning 7200 RPM.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/10/...te_performance
the 5400 hitachi beats a lot of 7200 drives. it's not the fastest, but there's no guarantee that apple would put in one of the 7200 drives which is actually faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
since we're talking about variables...
very little of this seems to do with the specific drive in the mbps...
so it is possible that the 5400rpm drive in the 15" is slower than a 7200rpm drive i might put it later.
i know i am just going to go with the stock drive, and see how things work.
will explore alternatives if & when...
interesting thread, just the same...
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
i think the 160 gig drive is probably a really good option. i'd only want it if its the samsung or hitachi though.. there was one other maker of 160 gig drives and those were slow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by zaghahzag
i think the 160 gig drive is probably a really good option. i'd only want it if its the samsung or hitachi though.. there was one other maker of 160 gig drives and those were slow.
and that's the problem; how do u guarantee which hard drive comes in your mbp??
|
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
I work for Western Digital, so allow me to point some things out about hard drives.
The higher density drives are using the newer perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR) method. You can stack more bits per inch this way than the traditional way. So more bits will fly by the head than a drive at the same RPM using longitudinal format.
But you also have to consider the fact that ERROR RATE goes up with high density drives. A number of factors can reduce the number of I/O's per second. One company's firmware is better than another's in certain areas. The quality of the media and heads is also a factor.
If you are really concerned, try to find a review of the drives on a site such as Tom's Hardware.
You will need to know what kind of hard drive Apple is shipping. This can change any time because they buy from multiple vendors to ensure enough supply. They seem to go with Seagate, but they also buy from Western Digital as well (especially for iPod replacement drives).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, a Dual 2Ghz G5 is faster than a Dual 1.83 Core Duo...it just is.
You guys are idiots if you think that faster RPM always equals faster drives. Flash drives have ZERO RPM and they are MUCH faster. THere are other factors involed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Allston, MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
-- Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jasong
You're not going to find blazing fast speeds with compact flash cards, but in general flash memory has the potential to be VERY fast as there is no moving parts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Mactivist
...allow me to point some things out about hard drives...
Mactivist, that info is appreciated. It is kind of driving me nuts that the only product-specific info available is Apple's commentary that the 7200 drives are faster. And we have no way of knowing whether that means "meaningfully faster throughput" or "faster spindle speeds ergo faster."
BareFeats will probably test the C2d MBPs sooner or later, but I need to order now.
-Allen Wicks
(
Last edited by SierraDragon; Oct 29, 2006 at 02:05 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jasong
Wow, such poor car analogies. Ever notice how some cars have 2 dials, MPH and RPM? That RPM means the same thing in cars as it does in disk drives, revolutions per minute. It doesn't say a thing about how fast the car (disk) is going, just how fast the motor is turning. If you're in 5th gear and your engine is turning 5400 RPM, it's a good bet you're moving faster than the guy in 2nd gear whose engine is turning 7200 RPM.
Read the analogy again, before criticizing it.
I never mentioned anything about RPMs of the engine. I'm trying to illustrate how you can retrieve data faster even if you're slower.
But since the car analogy is throwing you off let's try it again.
I can go up and downstairs 2 steps at a time (5200rpm drive)
You can go up and downstairs 3 steps at a time (7200rpm drive)
We both can take one package at a time.
Who will move 20 packages faster?
Well if you have to go up 200 steps per package and I have to go up 100 steps per package I'll move them faster, even though you are ACTUALLY FASTER.
Now all these analogies are assuming all factors are equal (manufacturer, cache, storage method...etc).
As Mactivist already pointed out, comparing different types of drives is not easily done, because there are more factors involved. We'll have to wait for real benchmarks to see which is faster.
PS: Don't be patronizing, I've been a car freak since I got my license over 20 years ago. I know what a tachometer and a speedometer are. Your analogy is incorrect since hard drive disks are the same size. The reason that a car in 2nd gear is slower then the car in 5th gear at a lower RPM is due to the size of the gear in the transmission. It has nothing to do with density.
|
-Toyin
13" MBA 1.8ghz i7
"It's all about the rims that ya got, and the rims that ya coulda had"
S.T. 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple just announced refurbished MacBook Pro pricing reductions:
The Apple Store (U.S.)
The price is good enough that I ordered a 2 GHz Core Duo to use until I have hard data on how the fastest C2D hard drive configurations perform. The CD MBP ships immediately. I will give the CD MBP to my Dad after hard drive info shakes out and I buy a C2D.
-Allen Wicks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
Mactivist, that info is appreciated. It is kind of driving me nuts that the only product-specific info avaialable is Apple's commentary that the 7200 drives are faster. And we have no way of knowing whether that means "meaningfully faster throughput" or "faster spindle speeds ergo faster."
BareFeats will probably test the C2d MBPs sooner or later, but I need to order now.
-Allen Wicks
A lot of storage gurus hang out at storagereview.com. The forum there is a good place to get very technical questions about hard drives answered. Wikipedia is good too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
i really don't think the partitioning thing is true. it's only true if you're only doing totally random seeks. I'd be interested in seeing performance benchmarks that back up his claims, which were clearly lacking from that guy's article.
Before everyone goes out and partitions the first 50 gigs of their drive for the system, lets wait til someone actually tries it and shows that it doesn't make any difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks for those links -through them I found an awesome solution:
MCE OptiBay Hard Drive for MacBook Pro and PowerBook G4
I always loved the versatility of my Wallstreet G3 PB with its removable optical drive. MCE now makes a replacement hard drive that fits into the optical drive's location. The drive comes with an external case for the removed Superdrive so it is still usable, and the change actually makes the Macbook Pro a few ounces lighter.
This means pro Mac laptops can now have two internal hard drives, which is very significant. One can order the 160 or 200 GB drive from Apple and add a fast 7200 rpm drive from MCE, allowing 260 or 300 GB total internal mass storage with 100GB of it on the fastest available drive. 50 GB or so of the fastest sectors of the larger drive can be partitioned as Photoshop scratch, creating (when equipped with 2 or preferably 3 GB RAM) both the first really good Photoshop laptop as well as the first laptop with the drive speed and mass storage to fully support DSLR photogs and Aperture.
Alternately one could just go for maximum speed in a 15" MBP by installing two 7200 rpm drives internally and moving the Apple drive to an external case.
Can you tell I am excited? I have been wanting this solution for years!
NOTE: There may or may not be heat and/or warranty issues associated with replacing the optical drive with a hard drive, but I have used MCE for years and never had any problems.
-Allen Wicks
(
Last edited by SierraDragon; Oct 29, 2006 at 03:39 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well some of those links to tests that people have linked to are measuring the 120 GB 5,400RPM drive against the 7,200RPM drive. That does not really show us what the 160 GB 5,400RPM perpendicular drive is capable of.
I was looking at Tom's hardware tests and i know that you need to see more to compare it to but the 7,200RPM did appear to be the fastest drive in these tests but the 160GB was not that far behind.
200 GB, 2.5", SATA: Fujitsu's MHV2200BT | Tom's Hardware UK and Ireland
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SierraDragon
Thanks for those links -through them I found an awesome solution:
MCE OptiBay Hard Drive for MacBook Pro and PowerBook G4
I always loved the versatility of my Wallstreet G3 PB with its removable optical drive. MCE now makes a replacement hard drive that fits into the optical drive's location. The drive comes with an external case for the removed Superdrive so it is still usable, and the change actually makes the Macbook Pro a few ounces lighter.
This means pro Mac laptops can now have two internal hard drives, which is very significant. One can order the 160 or 200 GB drive from Apple and add a fast 7200 rpm drive from MCE, allowing 260 or 300 GB total internal mass storage with 100GB of it on the fastest available drive. 50 GB or so of the fastest sectors of the larger drive can be partitioned as Photoshop scratch, creating (when equipped with 2 or preferably 3 GB RAM) both the first really good Photoshop laptop as well as the first laptop with the drive speed and mass storage to fully support DSLR photogs and Aperture.
Alternately one could just go for maximum speed in a 15" MBP by installing two 7200 rpm drives internally and moving the Apple drive to an external case.
Can you tell I am excited? I have been wanting this solution for years!
NOTE: There may or may not be heat and/or warranty issues associated with replacing the optical drive with a hard drive, but I have used MCE for years and never had any problems.
-Allen Wicks
That is cool, and it kind of makes me wonder...what if someone put 2 HDDs in the place of the optical drive and used RAID 0 on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
All these poor analogies are killing me. The bottem line is perpendicular allows for denser data. Denser = faster than other longitudinal 5400 drives, but .... and here is the important part.... that doesn't mean its faster than 7200.
You can burn all the brain cells you want trying to prove things on paper, but the truth lies in real testing. This may have already been posted, but I suggest all who think the 5400 is faster, , or even as fast, read these tests on Tomshardware. He tests them all and the 7200 is simply faster. Again, granted the denser perp drives do well, they still don't catch up to or surpass the 7200s
200 GB, 2.5", SATA: Fujitsu's MHV2200BT | Tom's Hardware
I also just read that Hitachi will be releasing a 200gb 7200rpm 2.5 sata disk in 1H 2007. Of course that thing will probably cost a small fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by teknishn
All these poor analogies are killing me. The bottem line is perpendicular allows for denser data. Denser = faster than other longitudinal 5400 drives, but .... and here is the important part.... that doesn't mean its faster than 7200.
You can burn all the brain cells you want trying to prove things on paper, but the truth lies in real testing. This may have already been posted, but I suggest all who think the 5400 is faster, , or even as fast, read these tests on Tomshardware. He tests them all and the 7200 is simply faster. Again, granted the denser perp drives do well, they still don't catch up to or surpass the 7200s
200 GB, 2.5", SATA: Fujitsu's MHV2200BT | Tom's Hardware
I also just read that Hitachi will be releasing a 200gb 7200rpm 2.5 sata disk in 1H 2007. Of course that thing will probably cost a small fortune.
its really close with the 5400 160 drives. 46 to 43.. and the 160 drive uses about 1/2 the power.
so you get a few percent more speed.. but at what cost? it's a 30% faster rotation for a 8% speed improvement and 2x power draw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by zaghahzag
its really close with the 5400 160 drives. 46 to 43.. and the 160 drive uses about 1/2 the power.
so you get a few percent more speed.. but at what cost? it's a 30% faster rotation for a 8% speed improvement and 2x power draw.
That depends on what you consider close. And you only looked at one of the many read/write benchmarks. Here are sone others in mb/s
Read rate max: 7200 = 54.4 5400/160 = 45.9
Read rate avg: 7200 = 40.8 5400/160 = 35.8
Write max: 7200 = 53 5400/160 = 45.7
Write avg: 7200 = 40.3 5400/160 = 35.1
Access time: 7200 = 15.1 5400/160 = 16.4
Personally I dont consider max transfers of 8-10mb/s faster and averages of 5+mb/s on read/write "close". The point is that people on this and other boards out there have been saying the 5400 is faster than the 7200.... and others that its the same. Neither is true. 7200 is faster PERIOD. And if you pour over the benchmarks that are out there besides this one, its even more convincing and a far greater disparity. Im not overly concerned about power. At idle the difference is .6 of a watt and under load the difference is about 2 watts. Furthermore, I dont plan on encoding video on battery power.
Don't get me wrong here though. Im not trying to tell everyone to buy 7200. I just want to set the record straight on the performance facts. If 60 extra gb is what you need and you're willing to sacrifice some performance and spend an extra $90 then get the 5400/160 perp drive. I happen to keep my bulk storage external with about a terabyte of firewire disk. Then I have another 2 small external 100gb 2.5 fw disks for travel/mobility. As a result, I opted for the higher performing 7200 disk and saved $90 in the process on my new 17 mbp. Cheaper and faster =
(
Last edited by teknishn; Nov 2, 2006 at 09:55 PM.
Reason: grammer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hope that you didn't include those 160 GB ATA hard drives that are listed on your site to get your averages.
I wonder which drives Apple will be using mainly in the C2D's MBP's? For those who already have their MBP's i would be interested to hear what drives Apple used in your machine.
I know that Apple typically use Seagate drives and the Seagate SATA PMR drive did well in these tests compared to the higher RPM 7,200RPM drive.
I posted this link earlier and i said that the 7,200RPM are the fastest but the PMR 160GB HD's are not that far behind.
I have used both a 7,200RPM and a 5,400RPM in a MBP and to me i found that the MBP with the 5,400RPM ran cooler than the MBP with the 7,200RPM drive.
I would have jumped at it if Apple did offer a 7,200RPM drive in the MBP 15inch model but if i have something that runs as fast as these 160 GB PMR HD's do and cooler i am very happy with that.
Originally Posted by teknishn
That depends on what you consider close. And you only looked at one of the many read/write benchmarks. Here are sone others in mb/s
Read rate max: 7200 = 54.4 5400/160 = 45.9
Read rate avg: 7200 = 40.8 5400/160 = 35.8
Write max: 7200 = 53 5400/160 = 45.7
Write avg: 7200 = 40.3 5400/160 = 35.1
Access time: 7200 = 15.1 5400/160 = 16.4
Personally I dont consider max transfers of 8-10mb/s faster and averages of 5+mb/s on read/write "close". The point is that people on this and other boards out there have been saying the 5400 is faster than the 7200.... and others that its the same. Neither is true. 7200 is faster PERIOD. And if you pour over the benchmarks that are out there besides this one, its even more convincing and a far greater disparity. Im not overly concerned about power. At idle the difference is .6 of a watt and under load the difference is about 2 watts. Furthermore, I dont plan on encoding video on battery power.
Don't get me wrong here though. Im not trying to tell everyone to buy 7200. I just want to set the record straight on the performance facts. If 60 extra gb is what you need and you're willing to sacrifice some performance and spend an extra $90 then get the 5400/160 perp drive. I happen to keep my bulk storage external with about a terabyte of firewire disk. Then I have another 2 small external 100gb 2.5 fw disks for travel/mobility. As a result, I opted for the higher performing 7200 disk and saved $90 in the process on my new 17 mbp. Cheaper and faster =
(
Last edited by rach; Nov 3, 2006 at 04:27 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
I posted a comparison of 100GB/7200 (in a rev A MBP), 120GB/4500, and 200GB/4200 results in this thread.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|