Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Another external HDD question: which is the bottleneck: FW800 or 5400RPM

1

147798

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 29, 2007
1,047
219
Got a MPB 13". I need a good external drive, but I'm wondering which is the data bottleneck: FW800 or 5400RPM?

The reason I ask is I have an old iMac with FW400 and an external Hitachi 7200RPM 200GB 16MB cache in an OWC case that's (suppesedly) capable of FW800. It seems to have taken the same amount of speed to restore a very large file to my iMac (FW400) vs. my new MBP (FW800).

I would like to replace this drive with something bigger, but if FW800 is the bottleneck, then I'm thinking I should just get a 5400RPM drive to both save money and get a larger drive.

Any thoughts?
 
1

147798

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 29, 2007
1,047
219
Upon further reflection, my issue has to be the INTERNAL 5400RPM drive on the MBP, not the FW800 nor the 5400RPM external.

But, if anyone can answer which is the bottleneck in an external set-up (5400 drive or FW800), that would be much appreciated.
 
After G

After G

macrumors 68000
Aug 27, 2003
1,583
1
California
5400 RPM on the external.

More accurately, it's the transfer rate on the HD's connection, and not the Firewire transfer rate. Theoretically, your FW800 connector can get up to 100MB/s transfer. Most mechanical hard drives go slower than that.
 
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

macrumors 68030
Jun 21, 2006
2,500
14
127.0.0.1
It depends on the drive in the enclosure. For an apples-to-apples comparison, a 7200RPM drive should be faster, especially when reading or writing at the outer portions of the drive platters. However, if the 5400RPM drive has a much higher platter density, it may be able to achieve faster transfers. Are you comparing two drives in particular?
 
1

147798

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 29, 2007
1,047
219
Bill Gates said:
It depends on the drive in the enclosure. For an apples-to-apples comparison, a 7200RPM drive should be faster, especially when reading or writing at the outer portions of the drive platters. However, if the 5400RPM drive has a much higher platter density, it may be able to achieve faster transfers. Are you comparing two drives in particular?
Click to expand...

No, not yet comparing two particular drives. I am familiar with density issues, etc. I just meant in gross terms -- which is slower -- FW800 throughput or a "typical" 5400RPM drive's ability to get the data to the FW800 interface. If the FW800 is the bottleneck, then there's no reason to go to 7200RPM external. If the drive is the bottleneck, then there is a reason.

In either case (5400 vs. 7200), the external is likely to be 500GB or greater.

From the other replies, it sounds like I should go with a 7200 external. My uses will be photography - i.e. keeping Lightroom RAW files on an external drive.
 
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

macrumors 68030
Jun 21, 2006
2,500
14
127.0.0.1
In gross terms the hard drive is the bottleneck. Even though burst speeds may be in excess of 100MB/sec, sustained transfer rates are typically well below 100MB/sec for magnetic storage.
 
1

147798

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 29, 2007
1,047
219
Bill Gates said:
In gross terms the hard drive is the bottleneck. Even though burst speeds may be in excess of 100MB/sec, sustained transfer rates are typically well below 100MB/sec for magnetic storage.
Click to expand...

So then it's down to comparing data rates for the 5400 vs 7200 drives I might be looking at. Same decision criteria if I was buying for an internal drive.

Thanks for the help!
 
fehhkk

fehhkk

macrumors 6502a
Jun 11, 2009
731
202
Chicago, IL
In theory, FW 800 should be able to do up to 80MB/s ... Some 5400rpm drives can achieve this transfer rate, like the WD Scorpio Blue 500GB.

I'd say it mostly depends on the drive being used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom