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

5400rpm or 7200rpm

aleksandra. said:
True but all of those affect speed very little if you compare to SSDs.

To the OP: if you want speed don't bother looking for the fastest HDD, just get a standard one and upgrade to SSD later on, as many people already said.
Click to expand...

Faster initially, but not in terms of transfer. If you want your apps to load up quickly, and to fetch small sizes then sure the SSD is perfect. But, I don't agree with giving the illusion that SSDs are hands down faster, when they're clearly slower in some regards aka writing. And quantifying the affective potential is very subjective. Some people find a boot time difference of 5 seconds to be a lot. Others, negligible. The question everyone should be asking themselves is the upgrade relative to price. Is the extra 5 cents per gigabyte worth a 5 second improvement? or is the extra $1.20 per gigabyte worth the extra 10 seconds improvements? Or even referencing the newer SSDs, is the extra $5 per gigabyte worth the extra 15 seconds improvement? And then you have to consider what kinds of improvements you want, whether it be loadings and boots, or writings and transfers.

Referring to the OPs need for photo editting: If you are a professional and need the power to massively archive huge resolutions, you are better off with a 7200RPM for the money, or the Supertalents $1000+ 160mbps write SSDs for the maximum performance out on today's market.
 
dudeitsjay said:
Faster initially, but not in terms of transfer. If you want your apps to load up quickly, and to fetch small sizes then sure the SSD is perfect. But, I don't agree with giving the illusion that SSDs are hands down faster, when they're clearly slower in some regards aka writing. And quantifying the affective potential is very subjective. Some people find a boot time difference of 5 seconds to be a lot. Others, negligible. The question everyone should be asking themselves is the upgrade relative to price. Is the extra 5 cents per gigabyte worth a 5 second improvement? or is the extra $1.20 per gigabyte worth the extra 10 seconds improvements. And then you have to consider what kinds of improvements you want, whether it be loadings and boots, or writings and transfers.

Referring to the OPs need for photo editting: If you are a professional and need the power to massively archive huge resolutions, you are better off with a 7200RPM for the money, or the Supertalents $1000+ 160mbps write SSDs for the maximum performance out on today's market.
Click to expand...

Show me a laptop hard disk which is faster than Intel X25-M, in anything. Here you have XBench results from laptop with said drive, to make things easier: http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc2=374926 . And it's just an MLC...
 
Once again you are missing the point. There are certain advantages SSDs and and certain weaknesses. The X-25s are the closest to reasonable pricings that are out on the market to date but are still a blistering triple the price per gigabyte, and have a weak 70mbps writing speed. This will show evidently in transferring files over 300mb. Go on newegg and find any laptop harddrive thats 5400 250/250 platter 8mb. They'll write over 256k bit info transfers faster at a quarter of the price.

SSDs are quicker in many aspects, but are slower in some and come at a steep price. Thats the point I'm trying to drive. You pay much more. Do the research and see if the SSDs' pricings and subsequent benefits will match what you're trying to do. Also forgot to mention SSD's while shockproof, also degrade over time and I would much rather consider the SSDs when their prices are cut in half and are then more reasonable and competitive, or wait till PRAM delivers. I'm refering to MLCs for now, since they're the ones not so ridiculously priced as to the SLCs. SLCs have a clear advantage in everything since their write speeds effectively doubled to 160+ but at almost triple the price to even the MLC?! Only the tip of the swords can justify that price for performance.

Those benchmarks can be so twisted sometimes. I don't see a longevity transfer data. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/602059/
Maybe that can sort of give insight as to how the xbench may be somewhat geared towards a certain result.
 
Shawny D said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609415 ;)
Click to expand...
thanks for the link! I wasn't aware of 512GB SSD's! good to know:)

as for the discussion about the merits or otherwise of 7200rpm HDD's compared to modern SSD's, I have used both and in actual operation it is light and day. it is a different computer with an SSD. nothing wrong with a good 7200 though. and if i wanted heaps of space, nothing wrong with s 2-platter 500GB 5400 either. it is good advice to look beneath the overall description, as has been said. within the categories there are wide differences in performance - including heat and sound. e.g. there are huge differences amongst SSD's. I am extraordinarily happy with my 120GB OCZ Summit, after trying out a Hyundai 160GB 7200rpm HHD and a WD 500GB 5400rpm HHD.
 
dudeitsjay said:
Once again you are missing the point. There are certain advantages SSDs and and certain weaknesses. The X-25s are the closest to reasonable pricings that are out on the market to date but are still a blistering triple the price per gigabyte, and have a weak 70mbps writing speed. This will show evidently in transferring files over 300mb.
Click to expand...

You still didn't show an example of a laptop HDD with higher write speed. Show me one and then I'll believe 70 MB/s is "weak" compared to laptop hard disks.

SSDs are quicker in many aspects, but are slower in some and come at a steep price. Thats the point I'm trying to drive. You pay much more. Do the research and see if the SSDs' pricings and subsequent benefits will match what you're trying to do. Also forgot to mention SSD's while shockproof, also degrade over time and I would much rather consider the SSDs when their prices are cut in half and are then more reasonable and competitive, or wait till PRAM delivers. I'm refering to MLCs for now, since they're the ones not so ridiculously priced as to the SLCs. SLCs have a clear advantage in everything since their write speeds effectively doubled to 160+
Click to expand...

I know very well they're expensive and clearly stated it's probably worth waiting until they get cheaper still in my previous posts. What else do you want?

Those benchmarks can be so twisted sometimes. I don't see a longevity transfer data. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/602059/
Maybe that can sort of give insight as to how the xbench may be somewhat geared towards a certain result.
Click to expand...

Real world performance is reflected by relatively small reads/writes. Large sequential writes are only significant if you operate large files on daily basis. And I still don't think HDDs would be faster here (again, I'm speaking of laptop drives).
 
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