7200 rpm HD [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

asmallchild

Mar 21, 2008, 02:49 PM

iTunes (large music and movie collection), DVD burning, Palm Desktop, playing DVDs, word processing, spreadsheets, email, web surfing, very minor Adobe Photoshopping, organizing large volumes of vacation photos, AIM, Audacity/Bitpim to edit MP3's and upload them to my cell phone, Epocrates for my Palm Pilot (a medical program, I'm a graduating med student), Handbrake to convert movies to my iPod Touch

Vedhead

Mar 21, 2008, 03:51 PM

for $100...get it.

fredrickyoon

Mar 21, 2008, 08:51 PM

7200 RPM is a faster drive and worth the extra dollars.

Ryox

Mar 21, 2008, 09:27 PM

sounds like you don't really need the 7200rpm, but space for your music and movies.
7200rpm does boost the performance marginally but probably not too important for your needs. I would get the stock and swap it out for the 320GB or the new 500GB if I were you.

Azmordean

Mar 21, 2008, 09:45 PM

If you don't get it and aren't doing other BTO customizations, get the computer from MacMall for a significant discount. That said, I'd get the 7200. I talked to a lot of my geek friends, and they said even for $350 (the difference between the MacMall price and the Apple + 7200rpm price) it is worth it. Hard drives are a major bottleneck on all computers, so speeding that up is always a plus. Random seeks are noticeably faster with a 7200RPM and a lot of day to day stuff involves random seeks. So I'd get it.

That said, I prefer speed to space.. if you need a massive HDD then you might want to go another route.

Cave Man

Mar 21, 2008, 11:35 PM

I talked to a lot of my geek friends, and they said even for $350 (the difference between the MacMall price and the Apple + 7200rpm price) it is worth it. Hard drives are a major bottleneck on all computers, so speeding that up is always a plus. Random seeks are noticeably faster with a 7200RPM and a lot of day to day stuff involves random seeks. So I'd get it.

It's also irrelevant compared to the 320/5400 drives for the OP's needs, where data density is king. It's too bad Apple doesn't offer them as options. The Samsung and WD 320/5400 are kings of the hill at the moment.

ruokay

Mar 22, 2008, 01:24 AM

I'm a dj and figured if i got the faster hard drive it would make a difference. This is my 2nd macbook pro w/ the upgraded 7200rpm hard drive (200gig).

I do not notice any difference when doing gigs.

I'm sure technical specs would prove otherwise that it is a faster option.

I'm also sure that a graphic designer would appreciate the faster RPM than a DJ would.

HERE'S THE SETBACK YOU SHOULD CONSIDER:

You cant buy it preconfigured - which means Apple has to customize it for you.

Guess who does it? Some facility overseas - and they suck - in terms of taking care of your "new" laptop.

Like I said, this is my 2nd laptop (first was 2.2 SR, second is 2.4 penryn) and both were custom configured - BOTH WERE DELIVERED WITH SCRATCHES ON THE BOTTOM OF THE LAPTOP - LOCATED NEAR THE SCREWS.

I called Applecare to inquire about it and they tell me its normal cosmetic.

ITS NOT NEW WHEN YOU CONFIGURE IT !!!!!!!

jsnuff1

Mar 22, 2008, 01:44 AM

i just upgrade to 7200 myself, and its defiantly worth it. Benchmarks showed at 25% increase in hard drive performance, and the improvements are defiantly noticeable.

fredrickyoon

Mar 22, 2008, 09:32 AM

True, but if you decide to get more space initially when purchasing and deciding to upgrade to a bigger and faster drive later, you're still putting in extra money to do the upgrade. Why not just get the faster drive now, and back it up to an external hard drive using Time Capsule or the Airport Extreme? It would be cheaper in my opinion.

gnasher729

Mar 22, 2008, 09:46 AM

It has been posted before: Speed depends on RPM, storage density (bigger drives will have higher density and be faster), and percentage of drive space used (the more percent of the drive is used, the slower it is. Bigger drives tend to be less full).

If you compare a 100 GB 7200 rpm and a 100 GB 5400 rpm, the 7200 rpm will be faster. Compare it to a 320 GB 5400 rpm, and it will be slower.

I talked to a lot of my geek friends, and they said even for $350 (the difference between the MacMall price and the Apple + 7200rpm price) it is worth it.

Have your geek friends ever seen a graph how hard drive performance goes down as the drive gets full?

mctheriot

Mar 22, 2008, 12:32 PM

I'm looking to update my MBP to a 7200 drive. Could you share the specs for what I need for a MBP?

Easy / hard to do? I've done plenty of desk-top replacements before but not a laptop.

Thanks,
Mark

i just upgrade to 7200 myself, and its defiantly worth it. Benchmarks showed at 25% increase in hard drive performance, and the improvements are defiantly noticeable.

lavrishevo

Mar 22, 2008, 12:36 PM

When I replaced my 5400 rpm drive with a 7200 I saw about a 20% increase all around. Boot speed, launching applications, conversions, and what not. Not a huge difference but noticeable.

Cave Man

Mar 22, 2008, 01:07 PM

When I replaced my 5400 rpm drive with a 7200 I saw about a 20% increase all around. Boot speed, launching applications, conversions, and what not. Not a huge difference but noticeable.

What capacity was your 5400 and what capacity is your 7200?

lavrishevo

Mar 22, 2008, 01:39 PM

What capacity was your 5400 and what capacity is your 7200?

I went from the stock 120 to the Hitachi Travelstar 200 gb. This was on a non SR MBP 2.16 so I may have seen a larger increase in speed due to technology or lack there of in the drive that originally came with my MBP.

AVR2

Mar 22, 2008, 01:56 PM

blackeyed

Mar 22, 2008, 02:11 PM

If you compare a 100 GB 7200 rpm and a 100 GB 5400 rpm, the 7200 rpm will be faster. Compare it to a 320 GB 5400 rpm, and it will be slower.

what about comparing the 7200rpm with 200GB to the 5400rpm with 250GB?

Cave Man

Mar 22, 2008, 02:15 PM

what about comparing the 7200rpm with 200GB to the 5400rpm with 250GB?

The Samsung and WD 320/5400 drives are just as fast as the 200/7200 drives in overall performance. They're cheaper, too.

lavrishevo

Mar 22, 2008, 02:16 PM

I've personally never noticed any performance differential between 5400 and 7200rpm drives. I'm sure it shows up on benchmarks, but in the real world, I'm equally sure that most people simply don't notice any difference, but might try and convince themselves that they can ;)

Strange you do not notice any difference it is quite noticeable on my machine. I ran my machine with the stock 5400 for over a year and only about 4 months ago did the upgrade and noticed the difference immediately. The specs of my old drive were far inferior compared to the Hitachi. Again the smaller cache comes into play on the older 5400 drives. This may not be the case in newer 5400 drives with caches the same size as the 7200.

Cave Man

Mar 22, 2008, 02:17 PM

I went from the stock 120 to the Hitachi Travelstar 200 gb.

The 320/5400 drives have greater data density/platter, thus the dramatic improvement in performance. Your 120 wasn't near the current density of 320 drives.

lavrishevo

Mar 22, 2008, 02:46 PM

The 320/5400 drives have greater data density/platter, thus the dramatic improvement in performance. Your 120 wasn't near the current density of 320 drives.

This makes sense then why I saw such an improvement and others will not. I am not an expert in drives by far just testifying to what I saw personally on my machine.

Would be nice to see some stats between the 320/5400 vs 200/7200.

Cave Man

Mar 22, 2008, 02:51 PM

Would be nice to see some stats between the 320/5400 vs 200/7200.

Here (http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html) you go. Note, four of the top five drives are 5400 rpm (sustained write).

lavrishevo

Mar 22, 2008, 03:08 PM

Here (http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html) you go. Note, four of the top five drives are 5400 rpm (sustained write).

Very interesting! It is nice to see my drive performing well in many of the categories. I am impressed how well the 5400's are doing. Sustained writing is not something I use much on my internal. I use the FW 800 Lacie big disk extreme raid 0 for video capture and what not but I am happy to see how far the 5400's have come along. Clearly with the new 5400's the difference will be minimal. What it boils down too is if your getting a new laptop then go with the largest most reliable drive be it 54 or 72 but if you have an older internal upgrade and you will see a significant difference.

mctheriot

Mar 24, 2008, 08:39 AM

Does anyone what the stock 200G drive that ships with the current base MBP is? I'd like to compare it to a 200G 7200RPM to see what the spec differences look like!

Mark

mctheriot

Mar 24, 2008, 10:51 AM

Ok, answered my own question: FUJITSU MHY2200BH with 8M cache.

Does anyone what the stock 200G drive that ships with the current base MBP is? I'd like to compare it to a 200G 7200RPM to see what the spec differences look like!

Mark

Heil68

Mar 24, 2008, 11:17 AM

If I'm not mistaken a 7200rpm will decrease battery life and run warmer than a 5400rpm drive.

Cave Man

Mar 24, 2008, 11:17 AM

If I'm not mistaken a 7200rpm will decrease battery life and run warmer than a 5400rpm drive.

While it will generate more heat, it will have no impact on battery life.

blackeyed

Mar 24, 2008, 01:18 PM

The 320/5400 drives have greater data density/platter, thus the dramatic improvement in performance. Your 120 wasn't near the current density of 320 drives.

everybody's only talking about the 320 GB drive. So again my question: Is it the same for the 250GB/5400 bto-drive? I'm asking that because I only wanna choose between the drives that are offered with the mbp.

Can somebody clarify that for me?

blackeyed

Mar 24, 2008, 02:18 PM

Ok, answered my own question: FUJITSU MHY2200BH with 8M cache.

does anyone know the exact name of the 250GB 5400rpm and 200GB 7200 GB so I can compare them myself?

Cave Man

Mar 24, 2008, 02:54 PM

Is it the same for the 250GB/5400 bto-drive? I'm asking that because I only wanna choose between the drives that are offered with the mbp. Can somebody clarify that for me?

does anyone know the exact name of the 250GB 5400rpm and 200GB 7200 GB so I can compare them myself?

Have a look at the Tom's site report on notebook drive performance (http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html). There are only a few 250/5400 drives currently on the market, and they all pretty much bunch together (except the Samsung, which is appreciably higher). I don't know which 250 gig drive Apple is putting in their laptops, so it's impossible to give you a precise answer. If you can find out what drives Apple is putting in for their 250/5400 and 200/7200, it would be much more informative.

blackeyed

Mar 24, 2008, 03:50 PM

Have a look at the Tom's site report on notebook drive performance (http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html). There are only a few 250/5400 drives currently on the market, and they all pretty much bunch together (except the Samsung, which is appreciably higher). I don't know which 250 gig drive Apple is putting in their laptops, so it's impossible to give you a precise answer. If you can find out what drives Apple is putting in for their 250/5400 and 200/7200, it would be much more informative.

just to make sure: the best one's always on top, no matter what category? :o

KT322

Mar 25, 2008, 06:11 AM

If I'm not mistaken a 7200rpm will decrease battery life and run warmer than a 5400rpm drive.

While it will generate more heat, it will have no impact on battery life.

A 7200rpm drive (assuming 160GB+) draws more current at idle than the Fujitsu HDs often found in recent base model MBPs. Therefore, upgrading from a 160GB-200GB 5400rpm drive to a 160-200GB 7200rpm drive will reduce battery life somewhat. However, the energy consumption of a 200GB 7200rpm drive may actually be less than that of a 320GB 5400rpm drive (especially the power hungry WD Scorpio 320GB).