MBP 200GB hard drive ACTUALLY pretty fast!!!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MovieCutter, Nov 15, 2006.

  1. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    http://barefeats.com/mbcd7.html

    Check it out. It beats the the 5400RPM AND 7200RPM drive in large file reads and writes. Glad I got the 200GB. LOTS of space and decent speed!
     
  2. Kolind macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    It beats it when the other drives are 80% full. I ordered mine with the 100GB drive for two reasons:

    1 - I need the extra speed that the 7200rpm drive offers (when not full).
    2 - The money I saved bought me a 250GB external HD w. FW 800.

    So for the same price as built-in 200GB, I got 350GB - of course I have to drag that external HD with me if I need it somewhere, but for the stuff I need it for - it's definitely a better deal than having the 200GB built in.
     
  3. reflex macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #3
    I went with the 200GB because:
    1. I need as much space as possible
    2. I assume it won't be slower than the 4200rpm in my current laptop

    I still hope it's as fast as possible, but this test doesn't tell me much either way.
     
  4. MovieCutter thread starter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4


    Good for you. I have about 4TB in external storage (1x1500GB, 1x1000GB, 1x800GB, 2x500GB externals) so that doesn't matter to me too much, plus a FW800-powered external Seagate 5400RPM perpendicular notebook drive, so now I always have 360GB with me without needing a power outlet.

    My point wasn't that the 200GB is a bad deal. My point is that the 200GB holds its own against the 5400RPM and 7200RPM drives. With Final Cut Studio (40GB), my music library (50-80GB), my photos (10-20GB), and all my other software, not to mention my Windows partition (40GB), this makes my 200GB drive perform better than the 7200RPM drive, and I can store more on it.
     
  5. iBorg20181 macrumors 6502

    iBorg20181

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #5
    I really went back-and-forth in trying to decide between the 160GB or 200GB! I always need more storage space, since my iTunes and iPhoto files are quite large, but I was afraid of the speed hit I'd take with a 4200rpm drive (which, for the smaller files that I'd typically be using, is still going to be noticeably slower, I think, vs. "large file reads and writes.")

    Ultimately, I went for the 160GB, and plan to get a minixpress 825 with another 5400rpm 160GB HD, with FW800/400/USB2 connections - not too large to lug around in my notebook case. At least until we see 3000GB 5400rpm 2.5" HDs - then I'll see how hard the swap process would be to replace my 160GB! ;)

    Glad for you that your 200GB will be fast enough! I'm still envious of your extra 40GB!

    iBorg
     
  6. erikistired macrumors 6502

    erikistired

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Location:
    (770)
    #6
    they tested using an external adapter.. that's not exactly proof of anything, regardless of their claims.
     
  7. MovieCutter thread starter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    If all the drives are connected with the same connection, it IS proof of something. All drives performing under the same conditions means that the numbers are accurate, if not precise. Ever taken a middle school science course?
     
  8. kalun macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    #8
    Good result, but shouldn't really surprise anyone that reading/writing a file 80% of the size of the harddrive means you will have to search for fragments of file many time.:rolleyes:

    But then again, the 72GB read/write is kind of a pointless test. I mean, other than testing stuff or storing data (which is what a server is for), who on earth will read/write a file over 50 GB?:D
     
  9. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #9
    So is this thread here to tell us that the 200 GB drive is fast enough for you, or is it here to tell us that it's a fast drive.

    I hope it's not the latter, because that test certainly doesn't show it. ;)
     
  10. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #10
    Does the 7200 rpm drive decrease the battery life any?
     
  11. MovieCutter thread starter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    THe point is to show that the drive isn't nearly as pathetic as everyone was making it out to be. It holds it's own, and surpasses expectations. A lot of people are on the fence as to whether they want to sacrifice a lot of performance for space, this is to point out that the amount of performance people THINK they would sacrifice isn't as much in reality. It's still not fast enough for me, but for me, space is more important than speed.
     
  12. Garden Knowm macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #12
    EXTREME NOTEBOOK STORAGE
    One added advantage of having TWO FireWire 800 ports on the miniXpress was illustrated
    recently when literally taped two notebook enclosures together to create a "mini RAID" box. By
    daisy-chaining the FireWire 800 ports and striping the two drives using Apple's Disk Utility, we
    were able to attain almost double our transfer speeds -- using only bus power. Eeeeeha!


    FREAKING COOL
     
  13. Kolind macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #13
    I think so, but don't think it's much though. I saw a website somewhere showing the power each of the different HD's needed, and the 7200rpm was the one using the most if I'm not mistaken. It would make sense that the faster it spins, the more power it uses as well.
     

Share This Page