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

250 vs 320 GB HD @ 7200 rpm

P

PAUL BRIAN

macrumors member
Original poster
Feb 27, 2008
58
0
is there an advantage to taking the 250 GB hard drive? will it run cooler? also, what are some other options out there i might consider?

i'm sticking with 7200 rpm by the way since I will mostly be using the MBP for recording
 
PAUL BRIAN said:
is there an advantage to taking the 250 GB hard drive? will it run cooler? also, what are some other options out there i might consider?

i'm sticking with 7200 rpm by the way since I will mostly be using the MBP for recording
Click to expand...

From what I've read on these forums, the 320G HD will be faster than the 250G spinning at the same speed. You can always buy a 320G@7200 from a 3rd party vendor, but it will probably cost you just as much as the upgrade from Apple. You can then sell the stock HD or use it as an external (if you need to).
 
what stock HDs is apple using for the new MBPs??? can someone post the specs? :)
 
If you were to have say 100GB of data on both drives, the number doesn't matter as long as each has the same amount, then the 320 should be faster. Drives become progressively slower as you begin to populate the inner part of the drive(data goes from the outside to inside) so the 320 would be farther out than the 200.
 
I dont think it would be noticeably faster if they are both at 7200 rpm.
 
I get it. I personally dump most unwanted stuff on a external anyway, I thought I would save £70 and went for the 250, 7200. A difference of 70gb is hardly massive but it would have been nice to know that before but I still think I would have saved the £70.

I also wonder how close they are to 250 and 320 respectively as HDD are never the exact size in my experience.
 
Karpfish said:
If you were to have say 100GB of data on both drives, the number doesn't matter as long as each has the same amount, then the 320 should be faster. Drives become progressively slower as you begin to populate the inner part of the drive(data goes from the outside to inside) so the 320 would be farther out than the 200.
Click to expand...

Yep, but that can be easily optimized by partitioning the drive into let's say 100GB (system) + 150GB (storage) -- that way the content of the system drive is always on the faster part of the hard drive.

Higher data density also means higher throughput, that's true. So if other specs are the same, then 320GB drive will be faster than 250GB drive. Rotational speed has more to do with latency; iow, how fast the hardware finds the first bit of the information you're looking for. 7200rpm is fast enough for pro audio/video work so both drives should be plenty fast.
 
OS X benefits from having ample free space for its daily, weekly, monthly maintenances.

A 500GB platter will provide faster read/write than a 100GB platter all other things being equal.
 
My recommendation would be, if you can make do using a 250GB drive for now, to go for that and save the money, then in a year or two when you actually need the larger drive, buy a 500 or 750GB drive (or whatever sizes are available for notebook drives at that time).
 
Just looked at HDD prices, With the money I have saved anyway I can get the 320GB for less as well as have a 250GB for kicks ( Might stick it in the PS3?), Saving myself £10 :p

All is good :D
 
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
Back