Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
Windows Vista.
I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.

Any time. This is a fairly big difference. But it's more expensive,
and in the large disk drive capacities, it's not available (at all, at
any price)


piclistguy******.com wrote:
> Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
> When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
> Windows Vista.
> I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.
>

And, generally, 5400s are quieter, cooler running, less power hungry.

As always, YMMV


<piclistguy******.com> wrote in message
news:1192411644.440192.237530@q3g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
Windows Vista.
I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.

piclistguy******.com wrote:
> Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
> When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
> Windows Vista.
> I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.
>

Measurable, certainly. Noticeable, maybe, depending on what you're doing.

Here's a thread with disappointing results that actually doesn't
surprise me much:
<http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=101352>

I did benchmarks while upgrgrading from 4200 to 7200 rpm drives.
Copying a huge file was certainly fast, but booting up, loading
applications, and compiling saw only marginal improvements.

I'd go for it, but not at great expense.

timeOday wrote:
> piclistguy******.com wrote:
>> Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
>> When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
>> Windows Vista.
>> I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.
>>
>
> Measurable, certainly. Noticeable, maybe, depending on what you're doing.
>
> Here's a thread with disappointing results that actually doesn't
> surprise me much:
> <http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=101352>
>
> I did benchmarks while upgrgrading from 4200 to 7200 rpm drives.
> Copying a huge file was certainly fast, but booting up, loading
> applications, and compiling saw only marginal improvements.
>
> I'd go for it, but not at great expense.

I believe there is also the increased power consumption of the larger
drives, which is probably the reason even high-end laptops have slow
drives. The machine I'm typing this on, is a fairly high-end laptop
(Sony VGN-SZ4XWN/C with dual core 2 GHz T7200, 120 GB, 2 GB RAM, both
integrated and Nvida GeForce Goc7400 GPU), but I think the disk in here
is only 4200 rpm. Given it cost about the US equivalent of $3200 < 6
months ago, I think Sony would have fitted a faster disk if it would
have improved *overall* performance. Sure, they could fit a 15,000 rpm
SCSI disk if they wanted maximum performance, but the power consumption
would be much higher.

Dave wrote:

> I believe there is also the increased power consumption of the larger
> drives,

I mean there is an increased power consumption of faster drives, not
larger ones (the latter may or may not be true, I have no idea).

Dave wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>> I believe there is also the increased power consumption of the larger
>> drives,
>
> I mean there is an increased power consumption of faster drives, not
> larger ones (the latter may or may not be true, I have no idea).

Well, in my upgrade from 4200 to 7200, I also tested battery life and
found the before / after difference to be even smaller than the
difference in performance - it was only about 5 minutes less on a laptop
with about 4 hours of battery life.

Re: "I believe there is also the increased power consumption"

That has to be analyzed on a drive-by-drive comparison basis; you can't
generalize. SOME 5,400 rpm drives draw MORE power than SOME 7,200 rpm
drives of the same capacity.


Dave wrote:
> timeOday wrote:
>> piclistguy******.com wrote:
>>> Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
>>> When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
>>> Windows Vista.
>>> I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.
>>>
>>
>> Measurable, certainly. Noticeable, maybe, depending on what you're
>> doing.
>>
>> Here's a thread with disappointing results that actually doesn't
>> surprise me much:
>> <http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=101352>
>>
>> I did benchmarks while upgrgrading from 4200 to 7200 rpm drives.
>> Copying a huge file was certainly fast, but booting up, loading
>> applications, and compiling saw only marginal improvements.
>>
>> I'd go for it, but not at great expense.
>
> I believe there is also the increased power consumption of the larger
> drives, which is probably the reason even high-end laptops have slow
> drives. The machine I'm typing this on, is a fairly high-end laptop
> (Sony VGN-SZ4XWN/C with dual core 2 GHz T7200, 120 GB, 2 GB RAM, both
> integrated and Nvida GeForce Goc7400 GPU), but I think the disk in here
> is only 4200 rpm. Given it cost about the US equivalent of $3200 < 6
> months ago, I think Sony would have fitted a faster disk if it would
> have improved *overall* performance. Sure, they could fit a 15,000 rpm
> SCSI disk if they wanted maximum performance, but the power consumption
> would be much higher.

Dave wrote:
> timeOday wrote:
>> piclistguy******.com wrote:
>>> Some laptops offer the option of a 5400 or 7200 rpm hard drive.
>>> When would I notice the performance difference on a new machine with
>>> Windows Vista.
>>> I plan on getting 2GB of ram and a 2.2GHZ Core Duo processor.
>>>
>>
>> Measurable, certainly. Noticeable, maybe, depending on what you're
>> doing.
>>
>> Here's a thread with disappointing results that actually doesn't
>> surprise me much:
>> <http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=101352>
>>
>> I did benchmarks while upgrgrading from 4200 to 7200 rpm drives.
>> Copying a huge file was certainly fast, but booting up, loading
>> applications, and compiling saw only marginal improvements.
>>
>> I'd go for it, but not at great expense.
>
> I believe there is also the increased power consumption of the larger
> drives, which is probably the reason even high-end laptops have slow
> drives. The machine I'm typing this on, is a fairly high-end laptop
> (Sony VGN-SZ4XWN/C with dual core 2 GHz T7200, 120 GB, 2 GB RAM, both
> integrated and Nvida GeForce Goc7400 GPU), but I think the disk in here
> is only 4200 rpm. Given it cost about the US equivalent of $3200 < 6
> months ago, I think Sony would have fitted a faster disk if it would
> have improved *overall* performance. Sure, they could fit a 15,000 rpm
> SCSI disk if they wanted maximum performance, but the power consumption
> would be much higher.

Barry's post is correct. Analyze on a
drive-by-drive basis *and* on the type of
data you are accessing.

Last week my 40GB HDD went south and decided
to replace it with a new 60GB drive.
Checking out specs for 5400's, I found that
Toshiba offers three 60GB drives. Even
though the rotation rate is the same for all
three, the transfer rates on these three
drives are: 100m/sec, 150m/sec, and 300m/sec.

So, a 5400 with plenty of cache, a good
interleave scheme and fast logic would
outperform a poor 7200. The latency
difference wouldn't be significant in the
larger scheme of things.

--
pj

"PJ" <pj4380******.com> wrote .

<snip>

So, a 5400 with plenty of cache, a good
interleave scheme and fast logic would
outperform a poor 7200. The latency
difference wouldn't be significant in the
larger scheme of things.

--
pj

"Interleave" - wow, I haven't heard that term in a long time! Is it even a
factor with modern drives? Do we have a way to find out anything about
interleave settings on a given drive, if they even exist? Much less modify
them?

Hmm, I think I've got an MFM controller and a couple old Seagate ST-125
or -225 drives somewhere in the closet. Now, do I still have a PC with
some plain ISA slots?

Val

Val wrote:
> "PJ" <pj4380******.com> wrote .
>
> <snip>
>
> So, a 5400 with plenty of cache, a good
> interleave scheme and fast logic would
> outperform a poor 7200. The latency
> difference wouldn't be significant in the
> larger scheme of things.
>
======= ===========
"Interleave" - wow, I haven't heard that
term in a long time! Is it even a
factor with modern drives? Do we have a way
to find out anything about
interleave settings on a given drive, if they
even exist? Much less modify
them?

Hmm, I think I've got an MFM controller and
a couple old Seagate ST-125
or -225 drives somewhere in the closet.
Now, do I still have a PC with
some plain ISA slots?

Val

=========== ========
Agree & sorry 'bout that. I'd been just
thinking of HDD's as black boxes but, when I
looked at that wide range of performance when
speed, size and physical characteristics are
the same I fell back to yesteryear to explain
what was going on.

Although Steve Gibson still talks to drive
optimization, I think the days of low-level
formatting are dead. Best left to the
manufacturer.

As things worked out, the local supplier only
had the 100m/sec drive (cheapest of the
three). I settled for that one. Good news
was that at 5400rpm and 60GB, my $50 bought a
better performing drive than the 4200x40GB
that came with the machine five years ago.

--
pj


--
pj

PJ <pj4380******.com> writes:

>Last week my 40GB HDD went south and decided
>to replace it with a new 60GB drive.
>Checking out specs for 5400's, I found that
>Toshiba offers three 60GB drives. Even
>though the rotation rate is the same for all
>three, the transfer rates on these three
>drives are: 100m/sec, 150m/sec, and 300m/sec.

Those are almost certainly the peak data transfer rates between
controller and host memory, *not* the actual useful transfer rate off
the disk surface. If all drives are based on the same age of
platter/head technology, the actual transfer rates may all be the same.

On the other hand, if the oldest/cheapest of these is a lower density
drive that takes more surfaces to achieve 60 GB, it will be slower than
a newer drive that fits 60 GB on just one surface.

Dave

To the extent that it is used at all, it's all done internally within
the drive (and I think that it's not used).

Remember that EVERYTHING that the host computers "sees" about a modern
IDE drive is a total fiction presented to the host PC by the
microprocessor on the drive's circuit board. Internally, you have no
idea what is going on, nor do you have a need to. The number of sectors
per track is not constant, sectors are "relocated" and just generally,
EVERYTHING that you see ... including the results of running diagnostics
(other than those by the drive manufacturer) is a total fiction.

PJ wrote:
> Val wrote:
>> "PJ" <pj4380******.com> wrote .
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> So, a 5400 with plenty of cache, a good
>> interleave scheme and fast logic would
>> outperform a poor 7200. The latency
>> difference wouldn't be significant in the
>> larger scheme of things.
>>
> ======= ===========
> "Interleave" - wow, I haven't heard that term in a long time! Is it
> even a
> factor with modern drives? Do we have a way to find out anything about
> interleave settings on a given drive, if they even exist? Much less modify
> them?
>
> Hmm, I think I've got an MFM controller and a couple old Seagate ST-125
> or -225 drives somewhere in the closet. Now, do I still have a PC with
> some plain ISA slots?
>
> Val
>
> =========== ========
> Agree & sorry 'bout that. I'd been just thinking of HDD's as black
> boxes but, when I looked at that wide range of performance when speed,
> size and physical characteristics are the same I fell back to yesteryear
> to explain what was going on.
>
> Although Steve Gibson still talks to drive optimization, I think the
> days of low-level formatting are dead. Best left to the manufacturer.
>
> As things worked out, the local supplier only had the 100m/sec drive
> (cheapest of the three). I settled for that one. Good news was that at
> 5400rpm and 60GB, my $50 bought a better performing drive than the
> 4200x40GB that came with the machine five years ago.
>