Any reason *not* to get a 7200rpm MBP drive?

[oxfordguy]

Hi - I'm currently spec-ing out a 2.5Ghz Macbook Pro (the 6Mb cache is the clincher over the 2.4Ghz), was going to hold off until the updates later this year, but had my Powerbook G4 stolen yesterday (fortunately its insured), so need to buy now...

Anyway, I was thinking of going for the 200Mb 7200rpm hard disc option for the speed benefits (for audio editing and gaming mostly, possibly a little video editing) and was wondering if there are any drawbacks to going this route, apart from the loss of 50Mb (which I won't notice, have lots of external storage)? e.g is the battery life worse, does the MacBook Pro run hotter, is it noisier and/or less reliable (or possibly the opposite)? Thanks

[bcaslis]

It is a little noisier than some of the other drives. If you mostly use it in a very quiet environment that is one thing to consider. Other than that, the only real issue is less disk space.

[skorpien]

I think you mean GB ;)

From what I've read and from my own experiences (I have the Hitachi 7200 rpm but nothing to compare to) it can be a little noisier, but just barely. I was just being paranoid as I've never owned a laptop and didn't know about the head parking in OSX being audible. Other than that, I'd say that I can't think of any other problems with getting a 7200 rpm drive. My MBP usually sits at 60 degrees Celsius, and from what I've read that's the average for a Penryn... so I don't think the HDD is contributing much to that at all.

[speakerwizard]

battery life would be shorter, other than that nothing really

[oxfordguy]

I think you mean GB ;)


Ah, ahem! Yes... My first hard-drive (in an Amiga) was only 80Mb BTW!


From what I've read and from my own experiences (I have the Hitachi 7200 rpm but nothing to compare to) it can be a little noisier, but just barely. I was just being paranoid as I've never owned a laptop and didn't know about the head parking in OSX being audible. Other than that, I'd say that I can't think of any other problems with getting a 7200 rpm drive. My MBP usually sits at 60 degrees Celsius, and from what I've read that's the average for a Penryn... so I don't think the HDD is contributing much to that at all.

Okay, can probably live with a little extra noise...

[nomar383]

My MBP usually sits at 60 degrees Celsius

OMFG, really? Thats hotter than Death Valley on a bad day :)

[andrewdale]

battery life would be shorter, other than that nothing really

I'm not so sure how much of a difference in battery life it really makes. I haven't read up on the 5400's, but my 7200 still gives me 4.5 - 5.5 hours of battery life under normal use.

[asmallchild]

If you insist on purchasing your MBP at an Apple Store (like me), many stores don't offer the 7200rpm option.

All they're willing to do in store is upgrade the RAM.

[oxfordguy]

If you insist on purchasing your MBP at an Apple Store (like me), many stores don't offer the 7200rpm option.

All they're willing to do in store is upgrade the RAM.

I'll be buying it online via the UK Education Store (I work for a University) as will get a large discount...

[skorpien]

OMFG, really? Thats hotter than Death Valley on a bad day :)

Well keep in mind this is internal temperature :p And an average, off the top of my head number. I'm not at my MBP so I can't check. This is usually after a few hours' use too, so it takes a while to reach those temps. Also, it seems there is a thermal paste issue which makes the MBPs run hotter than they should :( (Not NEARLY pro enough to fix it myself and don't want to ruin my Apple Care warranty)

[nomar383]

Well keep in mind this is internal temperature :p And an average, off the top of my head number. I'm not at my MBP so I can't check. This is usually after a few hours' use too, so it takes a while to reach those temps. Also, it seems there is a thermal paste issue which makes the MBPs run hotter than they should :( (Not NEARLY pro enough to fix it myself and don't want to ruin my Apple Care warranty)

I just checked my iStatPro a little closer and you are totally right, it's in Celsius! In fact my CPU is at 77 right now :eek: I guess 77 F wouldn't be very hot at all now that I think about it, hmmmmm

[Freyqq]

higher density drives at 5400 can be faster than lower density 7200 rpms

a 320 gig 5400 rpm has about equivalent speed to a 200 7200 prm

look up the benchmarks

[acarle208]

All it comes down to is speed or storage(and the faster costs more).

[alphaod]

Yes if you need random seek then you will want the 7.2k drive, otherwise, just get a bigger 5.4k drive.

[Tom Sawyer]

Ah, ahem! Yes... My first hard-drive (in an Amiga) was only 80Mb BTW!



Okay, can probably live with a little extra noise...

Very cool.... Ex - Amigahead here too. Cut my teeth on a 500, ended up with a very nicely equipped 1200 that left me in 1995. I recall paying $200 bucks or so for that 80MB hard drive and about the same for an 8MB simm. Whoa... those were the days. :rolleyes:

[jaredisme]

OMFG, really? Thats hotter than Death Valley on a bad day :)

Much much hotter.

Actually my iMac doesn't even run that hot and I would imagine that it would because the screen is brighter and everything is in one slab, not two.

[raremage]

Much much hotter.

Actually my iMac doesn't even run that hot and I would imagine that it would because the screen is brighter and everything is in one slab, not two.

But much cooler than the Gen 1 MBPs. or maybe they've just gotten much, much better at disipating the heat so as not to pass it through the case.

My first gen would get way too hot to touch in several places, including the bottom. You really couldn't work with it on you lap for very long without getting uncomfortable. The new one (just recently got a 2.5) is much better when it comes to temperature - it's a little warm, but not painful to touch.

[eXan]

Fully loaded 200GB 7200 is slower than 250 GB 5400 loaded with 200 GBs of data.

When both are nearly empty, 7200 is faster.

[shoarthing]

. . . the 100GB-per-platter 7200rpm jobbie is roughly as quick for streaming, at least on the outer part of the disks, as a 167GB-per-platter 5400rpm HDD - these are not available yet as BTO options.

The original specsheet for this Macbook Pro 4.1 showed a 500GB option - this would imho be the ideal HDD; but the 9.5mm 3x167GB HDDs are not yet available.

I also have the Hitachi 7200, & it is just about audible, tho' refined & quiet by all normal standards.

My 2.5GHz Penryn idles at 46~51C [I am also in the UK] with the fans set to have a minimum speed of 1500rpm, using 'Fancontrol'.

I have never got the thing over 66C even when encoding H264 for days on end - the fans run at just under 4000rpm to hold the thing to that temperature range & are clearly audible but not unpleasant.

[eXan]

My 2.5GHz Penryn idles at 46~51C [I am also in the UK] with the fans set to have a minimum speed of 1500rpm, using 'Fancontrol'.

is that 2500? Not 1500?

[shoarthing]

is that 2500? Not 1500? - see attachment. Walltime 2.25 hours.

[eXan]

- see attachment. Walltime 2.25 hours.

wow they must have lowered the minimum fan speed in penryns, because in SR and older the min speed was like 2000 rpm

[shoarthing]

wow they must have lowered the minimum fan speed in penryns, because in SR and older the min speed was like 2000 rpm . . smcfancontrol didn't work for me [appeared to be incompatible with the 17" 4.1]; see the fancontrol homepage (http://www.lobotomo.com/products/FanControl/) for further info/confirmation of 1500rpm setting. Uninstallation is mildly non-trivial [requires resetting the SMC].

[eXan]

. . smcfancontrol didn't work for me [appeared to be incompatible with the 17" 4.1]; see the fancontrol homepage (http://www.lobotomo.com/products/FanControl/) for further info/confirmation of 1500rpm setting. Uninstallation is mildly non-trivial [requires resetting the SMC].

It didn't really answear my question...

What is the default minimum fan speed in penryn MBPs? Also I didnt know it is possible to set the fan speed below the factory minimum

[shoarthing]

It didn't really answear my question...

What is the default minimum fan speed in penryn MBPs? Also I didnt know it is possible to set the fan speed below the factory minimum . . 2000rpm, as with the previous gen C2D.

[eXan]

. . 2000rpm, as with the previous gen C2D.

thx

[raremage]

. . smcfancontrol didn't work for me [appeared to be incompatible with the 17" 4.1]; see the fancontrol homepage (http://www.lobotomo.com/products/FanControl/) for further info/confirmation of 1500rpm setting. Uninstallation is mildly non-trivial [requires resetting the SMC].

There appears to be some reports of FanControl contributing to lockups and/or unexpected reboots...have a quick look around these forums and you will find them.

[shoarthing]

There appears to be some reports of FanControl contributing to lockups and/or unexpected reboots...have a quick look around these forums and you will find them. . . . would have mentioned any such hassles if present: you can assume fancontrol works fine in at least one competently setup Penryn 17".

[cmcbridejr]

Yes if you need random seek then you will want the 7.2k drive, otherwise, just get a bigger 5.4k drive.

How do you know if you need random seek?

[shoarthing]

How do you know if you need random seek? . . need for random seek speed [roughly] = focus on OS responsiveness [little files being continuously loaded/saved] as opposed to focus on streaming speed of large contiguous data files.

In the server/serious workstation world where stability & performance really count, it is conventional to use 15K rpm boot volumes [ideally mirrored], then have some economical form of redundant storage off a serious hardware RAID controller.

[cmcbridejr]

. . need for random seek speed [roughly] = focus on OS responsiveness [little files being continuously loaded/saved] as opposed to focus on streaming speed of large contiguous data files.

In the server/serious workstation world where stability & performance really count, it is conventional to use 15K rpm boot volumes [ideally mirrored], then have some economical form of redundant storage off a serious hardware RAID controller.

So, basically what you are saying is that the OS will run smoother with a faster hard drive. Right?

[Csmitte]

It is a little noisier than some of the other drives. If you mostly use it in a very quiet environment that is one thing to consider. Other than that, the only real issue is less disk space.

what he said plus a little more heat. not too much to be concerned about.

[Csmitte]

do you really need seek speed? the only reason not to get it is space, there is a 500gb 5400rpm due out shortly

cheers

[shoarthing]

So, basically what you are saying is that the OS will run smoother with a faster hard drive. Right? . . OS will run *faster* . . . not really the same as smoother.

Put it like this, the moment one of these (http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=241981) is a) 128GB & b) slightly more affordable than this OCZ-branded Samsung 64GB jobbie (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227295), I'll take some brave-pills & start unscrewing my MBP's case . . .

[inferre]

higher density drives at 5400 can be faster than lower density 7200 rpms

a 320 gig 5400 rpm has about equivalent speed to a 200 7200 prm

look up the benchmarks

Yes, it's true but.......
....the HARD DISK HITACHI TRAVELSTAR 7200 200gb (RPM TECH) is an high density drive!
Hi

[rhysjones81]

The 7200 rpm drive is good if you need to access your information quickly, its bad if you want your battery to last a long time.

With newer Macbook Pro models that use LED back lighting though the battery gain you make back from upgrading from fluorescent lighting is enough to justify the speed increase.

Another issue is heat, and also drive life, a buddy of mine has a 7200 rpm and has already had to have it replaced, fitted it himself.

[alphaod]

Like I said already: a large high capacity 5.4k drive is comparable to a lower capacity 7.2k drive in speed and everything; however it will always lose in random access.

[Tom Sawyer]

I ended up installing a new Hitachi 7K200 in my MBP and the difference from the stock Toshiba 120gb 5400rpm drive was amazing. The 7K200 is rated as the fastest laptop drive available. I think it's the best of both worlds, very fast speed (7200rpm + Perpendicular Technology) and a great capacity.

It's also a very low power requirement drive, my battery life has not been affected at all by the upgrade.

[cmcbridejr]

I ended up installing a new Hitachi 7K200 in my MBP and the difference from the stock Toshiba 120gb 5400rpm drive was amazing. The 7K200 is rated as the fastest laptop drive available. I think it's the best of both worlds, very fast speed (7200rpm + Perpendicular Technology) and a great capacity.

It's also a very low power requirement drive, my battery life has not been affected at all by the upgrade.

Thanks for sharing your experience rather than just an opinion.

I know that my next laptop will definitely have a 7,200 RPM drive, especially since I use Final Cut Studio.

[gnasher729]

So, basically what you are saying is that the OS will run smoother with a faster hard drive. Right?

On a Macintosh that has a serious lack of RAM, a faster hard drive may change it from absolutely terrible slow to seriously annoying slow :rolleyes: If the hard drive speed affects the speed of the OS, you should get more RAM.

With lots of RAM, the operating system will also cache lots of data from the hard drive, so if you access many small files (where the 7200 RPM drive may be a bit faster), they will stay in RAM after the first access and will not be read again.

For large files, a large 5400 drive is about as fast as a 7200 drive while the drive is empty. As the drive fills, both will get slower, but the larger drive slows down less.

[gnasher729]

I ended up installing a new Hitachi 7K200 in my MBP and the difference from the stock Toshiba 120gb 5400rpm drive was amazing. The 7K200 is rated as the fastest laptop drive available. I think it's the best of both worlds, very fast speed (7200rpm + Perpendicular Technology) and a great capacity.

Nobody says a 200 GB 7200 RPM drive isn't faster than a 120GB 5400 RPM drive. The point is that _bigger_ drives are faster, and the 7200 RPM drive will be outperformed by a 320GB 5400 RPM drive.

[cmcbridejr]

Nobody says a 200 GB 7200 RPM drive isn't faster than a 120GB 5400 RPM drive. The point is that _bigger_ drives are faster, and the 7200 RPM drive will be outperformed by a 320GB 5400 RPM drive.

Can you prove this with benchmarks or show us a link with proof?

[telecomm]

Can you prove this with benchmarks or show us a link with proof?

Look at Barefeats.com for benchmarks if you're interested. Back when this was a hot topic, a (rather old) test revealed (comparing at 100 GB 7200 to others)...


a) The 7200rpm drives are the fastest when empty...

b)... but if you have 74GB of data on each of the drives, the 4200rpm drive was actually faster. That's because 74GB of data puts the 7200rpm drive at 80% capacity while the 200GB 4200rpm drive is only at 40% capacity. (See "74G Mark" graphs above.)

http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

Edit: fixed link

[Smurfed]

I've used both 7200rpm and 5400, i don't notice much of a difference except when the 7200has been formatted it does feel faster than the 5400

[cmcbridejr]

Look at Barefeats.com for benchmarks if you're interested. Back when this was a hot topic, a (rather old) test revealed (comparing at 100 GB 7200 to others)...


a) The 7200rpm drives are the fastest when empty...

b)... but if you have 74GB of data on each of the drives, the 4200rpm drive was actually faster. That's because 74GB of data puts the 7200rpm drive at 80% capacity while the 200GB 4200rpm drive is only at 40% capacity. (See "74G Mark" graphs above.)

http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

Edit: fixed link

Thank you for being so quick with the link.

This was a very interesting read - something that I never realized before.

I hate to trouble you, but are you able to show another valid source that is more recent (this article is from 2006)? Though I know of Bare Feats, I feel more trusting when I read from more than just one source (especially a current article since technology rapidly changes).

Then I will feel complete assurance in getting a higher capacity 5,400 RPM instead of the 7,200 RPM.

Also, I have always thought that it is not recommended to get anything less than 7,200 RPM if you do video or audio work. Does that just apply to only the scratch disk (external drive) and not the system drive (internal)?

[gnasher729]

Also, I have always thought that it is not recommended to get anything less than 7,200 RPM if you do video or audio work. Does that just apply to only the scratch disk (external drive) and not the system drive (internal)?

16 bit stereo audio at 44,100 samples/second is about 176KB per second or 0.176 MB per second or maybe one third of a percent of what a 250 GB 5400 RPM drive can write. Video coming from MiniDV is 3,600,000 bytes per second, that is a whopping six percent of what that drive can handle.

I think this advice needs to be read in context. The real advice used to be "get the fastest drive you can". That is less important now since drives have become faster anyway, so the second fastest drive might be just fine. But then some clever guy spotted that all else being equal (identical 120 GB drives, for example) the 7200 RPM is faster than the 5400, so they gave the advice "go for 7200 RPM. However, today this advice is incorrect because all else is not equal - the 7200 drives you can buy are smaller and therefore slower than the bigger 5400 RPM drives.

[cmcbridejr]

So, on a Mac Pro, there is an option for a 300 GB 15,000 RPM HDD.

The cost is really high considering that you are only getting 300GB of storage.

Are you saying that the 1TB 7,200 RPM would be much faster than the 300GB 15,000 RPM if both had 150GB of data on the drives?

The only benefit of the faster drive would be to put the 300GB 15,000 RPM drive in a RAID array, which the RAID Card is the necessary if you add that option on the configurator.

Will you please elaborate on the 15,000 RPM option versus 7,200 RPM option, as well as the advantages of the RAID Card?

Thanks in advance.

[alphaod]

I'll put this way:

There is no reason not to get a 7200 RPM drive. If you're doing video editing, you shouldn't be using the internal drive for scratch anyways.

[inferre]

But then some clever guy spotted that all else being equal (identical 120 GB drives, for example) the 7200 RPM is faster than the 5400, so they gave the advice "go for 7200 RPM. However, today this advice is incorrect because all else is not equal - the 7200 drives you can buy are smaller and therefore slower than the bigger 5400 RPM drives.

Oooo, now I can understand why servers have 10.000/15.000 RPM disks.
Servers are slower than PC :D

[burningrave101]

Nobody says a 200 GB 7200 RPM drive isn't faster than a 120GB 5400 RPM drive. The point is that _bigger_ drives are faster, and the 7200 RPM drive will be outperformed by a 320GB 5400 RPM drive.

The current 320gb 5400rpm drives do NOT outperform the 200gb 7200rpm drives but performance is fairly close due to the fact it has larger platters. With desktop drives the newer Western Digital 640gb drives come close to 10k raptor speeds due to having two single 320gb platters when most hard drives of that size have 3-4 smaller platters. A fast 500gb 5400rpm drive may end up outperforming the 7200rpm drives though if it doesn't have small platters.

[burningrave101]

So, on a Mac Pro, there is an option for a 300 GB 15,000 RPM HDD.

The cost is really high considering that you are only getting 300GB of storage.

Are you saying that the 1TB 7,200 RPM would be much faster than the 300GB 15,000 RPM if both had 150GB of data on the drives?

There is a huge difference between 7200rpm and 15,000rpm. The difference between 5400rpm and 7200rpm is much smaller. Naturally the 300gb 15k drive is going to be noticeably faster than any 7200rpm drive but is that extra speed worth it you for the higher cost and low amount of storage? The 1TB 7200rpm drive would still be plenty fast in it's own right and give you a lot more storage. This theory of slower drives being faster than faster drives all based on the size of the drive is going to depend A LOT on the specific drives being looked at. One does not equal all. There are some 5400rpm and 7200rpm drives that are quite a bit slower than others in tests and the size of the platters is what's going to influence whether the 5400rpm drive is faster than the 7200rpm counterpart. It doesn't matter if it's a 750gb 5400rpm drive if it has tiny little platters. Usually they're not going to use that small of platters in such a large drive like that though. But like I said it just depends on the particular model hard drive, the size of the platters, and the spindle speed when it comes down to what's "faster".

[burningrave101]

Oooo, now I can understand why servers have 10.000/15.000 RPM disks.
Servers are slower than PC :D

There are both PC and MAC servers and PC servers are the primary ones used so I don't know what you meant by that statement lol. 10k/15k drives are used mostly in servers because servers are constantly transferred large amounts of data and need to be able to access that data as quickly as possible.

[eXan]

There are both PC and MAC servers and PC servers are the primary ones used so I don't know what you meant by that statement lol. 10k/15k drives are used mostly in servers because servers are constantly transferred large amounts of data and need to be able to access that data as quickly as possible.

He used "PC" as personal computer, not just a computer that runs Windows.

BTW, its Mac, not MAC.

[bart rijksen]

Hi - I'm currently spec-ing out a 2.5Ghz Macbook Pro (the 6Mb cache is the clincher over the 2.4Ghz), was going to hold off until the updates later this year, but had my Powerbook G4 stolen yesterday (fortunately its insured), so need to buy now...

Anyway, I was thinking of going for the 200Mb 7200rpm hard disc option for the speed benefits (for audio editing and gaming mostly, possibly a little video editing) and was wondering if there are any drawbacks to going this route, apart from the loss of 50Mb (which I won't notice, have lots of external storage)? e.g is the battery life worse, does the MacBook Pro run hotter, is it noisier and/or less reliable (or possibly the opposite)? Thanks

It's louder, gives you less space, and less battery life

[burningrave101]

He used "PC" as personal computer, not just a computer that runs Windows.

BTW, its Mac, not MAC.

Ahh, ok. Didn't catch that. Well his statement is still wrong. Servers are typically much faster than personal computers.

And I like typing it as MAC instead of Mac. Makes it stand out more in a sentence lol.

[Cave Man]

And I like typing it as MAC instead of Mac. Makes it stand out more in a sentence lol.

While there's no confusion in this thread, in others it could be a problem since MAC is a term used for networking, while Mac refers to Macintosh.

[Cave Man]

The current 320gb 5400rpm drives do NOT outperform the 200gb 7200rpm drives but performance is fairly close due to the fact it has larger platters.

What is the diameter of a platter from a 7200 drive and the diameter of a platter from a 5400 drive?

They can outperform them in some instances. For example, when each drive has about 170 gigs or more occupied, then the 5400 drive will surpass the 7200 in many ways. Right now, my MBP's 320 gig drive has 164 gigs occupied. If I had a 200/7200, it'd be close to having such issues.

[burningrave101]

What is the diameter of a platter from a 7200 drive and the diameter of a platter from a 5400 drive?

They can outperform them in some instances. For example, when each drive has about 170 gigs or more occupied, then the 5400 drive will surpass the 7200 in many ways. Right now, my MBP's 320 gig drive has 164 gigs occupied. If I had a 200/7200, it'd be close to having such issues.

Yeah but the problem is when you're looking at arial density you can't just look at the size of the drive by itself when you're talking about amount of gigs being occupied. The size of the platters used is what's going to affect performance the most outside of spindle speed. The reason the WD 640gb 7200rpm 3.5" drive gives you performance a lot closer to 10k raptor speeds is because of only have 2 large platters. Other 500-750GB drives are the same size and spindle speed but they don't offer that same performance as that particular drive. How many platters does the WD 320gb Scorpio have?

[bennyboi]

I had a 5400 powerbook such as yourself. I would choose a faster HDD especially for audio editing. We've been skyrocketing in computer chip performance advancement, which is fantastic. But- we are mosying along in Hard Drive advancements (they are getting smaller, but not much faster). Having a faster hard drive in my opinion is important to maximize whatever chip you're using. Especially if you have plenty of external space.

I *wish* we were at 15000 rpm for cheap internal drives. wah. :p

[Cave Man]

I'm not sure many people in this thread are all that interested in the 3.5" drives since we're talking about 2.5" notebook drives.

I don't know how many platters are in the WD 320 Scorpio. My Samsung has two 160 gig platters. The new Samsung 500 gig has three 167 gig platters.

[burningrave101]

I'm not sure many people in this thread are all that interested in the 3.5" drives since we're talking about 2.5" notebook drives.

I don't know how many platters are in the WD 320 Scorpio. My Samsung has two 160 gig platters. The new Samsung 500 gig has three 167 gig platters.

There's no difference in the logics between a 3.5" and a 2.5" hard drive. They have the same internal mechanical workings and will performance will be measured from the same influences. I was imply relating to that particular 3.5" desktop hard drive because it's a fairly popular drive and it's easy to see how it's faster than other drives in it's class.

See I'm not sure how much faster the new Samsung 500 gig 2.5" drive will be compared to your existing 320 gig one due to the fact the platters are almost the same size even though you're looking at 320 gig vs 500 gig. I'm sure it will be somewhat faster though since it's a newer designed drive. I don't know though. I need to do more reading up on the logistics of how the size of the platters vs just an overall increase in size of the hard drive relates to differences in performance.

[alphaod]

Let's just put it this way: a 500GB 5.4k is only caparable to a 200GB 7.2k, but when it comes to random seak a 100GB 7.2k will trump the 500GB 5.4k

[kilo67]

Have tried both 5400 and 7200 rpm drives and found that the 7200's run hotter. Although some of the latest technology indicates the 7200's don't draw as much current as some of the 5400's.