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

A Poll to Help me decide: 5400 vs 7200

Which do you prefer?

  • 5400

    Votes: 31 29.8%

  • 7200

    Votes: 73 70.2%
  • Total voters
    104
D

dbernie41

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 14, 2007
138
55
Ohio
I got my MBP in December, the lowest model, and have already upgraded to 4 gigs of ram and now I only have about 30 gigs of HD space left and I am soon going to be purchasing Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio and I just got Adobe CS3 Design Premium but havent started creating any content and I am taking a 10 week trip to Europe this summer... all through school! So Im thinking I am going to need a new HD. I have a 500 gig external for Time Machine and some spare storage but I like the convenience of having most of my things actually on my machine. So... 7200 vs 5400? In the near future I will be doing alot of Photoshopping and working with FCS, Logic, etc.

However, to YOU, what do you prefer?
 
For video editing your supposed to use an external drive/not the drive your OS is on and as fast as possible.
I think 7200 is in order
 
The density in the WDC 320gbs help the slower 5400 RPM compete neck and neck with smaller 7200 rpm drives.

Go with the 320gb 5400 or wait a little longer for the 500s to come out next month.
 
Do those of you have these drives installed notice a significant increase in power consumption? I was thinking of upgrading from the 160gb HD in my 2.4ghz MBP to the Western Digital 320gb 5400rpm, however I heard that it'll consume twice as much power as my current drive, so it looks like I'm going to opt for the 250gb Hitachi Travelstar, which according to Tom's Hardware (the below link) consumes less power.

I'm concerned with battery life as I am a University student and most of my usage is in-class.

stats

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html?modelx=33&model1=771&model2=1100&chart=157
 
Sdao said:
Do those of you have these drives installed notice a significant increase in power consumption? I was thinking of upgrading from the 160gb HD in my 2.4ghz MBP to the Western Digital 320gb 5400rpm, however I heard that it'll consume twice as much power as my current drive, so it looks like I'm going to opt for the 250gb Hitachi Travelstar, which according to Tom's Hardware (the below link) consumes less power.

I'm concerned with battery life as I am a University student and most of my usage is in-class.

stats

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html?modelx=33&model1=771&model2=1100&chart=157
Click to expand...

Took maybe 5 minutes off of my typical battery life.

I have a 2.2 Santa Rosa with The WDC 320.

Don't even screw around with a 250 what a waste of time to pull your entire machine apart when you could spend a few more bucks and do it right the first time.

We are talking about 30-40 bucks here. (US)
 
brandonshough said:
Took maybe 5 minutes off of my typical battery life.

I have a 2.2 Santa Rosa with The WDC 320.

Don't even screw around with a 250 what a waste of time to pull your entire machine apart when you could spend a few more bucks and do it right the first time.

We are talking about 30-40 bucks here. (US)
Click to expand...

So, no complaints regarding your battery life. That's great. How many battery cycles have you gone through and what is your battery health%? You can get those stats by using the iStat widget, if you don't already have it.

I'm guessing, if battery consumption isn't that noteworthy, I'll be leaning towards the 320 WD.

Another question for you, brandonshough, does your mbp run hotter than before? Or are all of the differences really that insignificant?
 
Sdao said:
So, no complaints regarding your battery life. That's great. How many battery cycles have you gone through and what is your battery health%? You can get those stats by using the iStat widget, if you don't already have it.

I'm guessing, if battery consumption isn't that noteworthy, I'll be leaning towards the 320 WD.

Another question for you, brandonshough, does your mbp run hotter than before? Or are all of the differences really that insignificant?
Click to expand...

No noticeable difference in heat. I stress mine pretty hard daily with Parallels for work and the general OS X apps. With the occasional Video/Photo stuff.

45 Cycles. 95% health.

The iStat widget hates Santa Rosa machines ;) but with the network piece off it's quite handy/reliable.

Keep in mind that Samsung is releasing 9mm 2.5 500GB notebook drives sometime next month if you manage to wait a bit longer.
:apple:
 
I voted 5400. This is purely because the size of the drive is more important to me than speed. I have the WD 320gb HDD and 4gb ram in my white 2.2 MacBook
 
Can anyone share their thoughts on how loud the 320 from WD is? Can you hear the drive heads clicking during seek or click when they park? Also, I am skeptical of the "non appreciable battery life" when it has an idle draw of 2.0 watts, where as the 160 Seagate, which is the 160 drive that Apple uses a lot of the time, idles at 0.8 watts - less than half!

The hard drive isn't the only drain on a laptop's battery, but it is a significant factor. I guess I am just wondering about how scientific people were in determining that there new drive has no real effect on their battery life?
 
Freyqq said:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html?modelx=33&model1=1100&model2=993&chart=149

looks like the 320 scorpio is actually a pretty good performer despite 5200rpm
Click to expand...

One quick note -- that comparison page shows the Hitachi 72K Sata 150. There is a Travelstar Sata 300, so make sure you are looking at the right drives. Not sure why the Sata 300 isn't on that chart.

OWC seems to sell the SATA 150, so the 320GB would be faster. I think in this case it's more due to the 2X data pipe than the data density, though.
 
spaceballl said:
what a silly poll - why would anyone "prefer" slower
Click to expand...

Um, many reasons.

The MBP runs hot already with a 5400; imagine it with a 7200. Some people are willing to take the risk, because they use intensive programs, like the Adobe CS3 suite. Others aren't. In fact, a lot of the MBP's that are brought to the Genius Bar have reported 7200 HD's burning up their case. Others haven't. It's just the risk you'd have to take with a more intense drive.

Some people prefer space over speed. The biggest 5400 drive is 250; the biggest 7200 drive is 200.

So no, this isn't a silly question at all.
 
nl2134 said:
Um, many reasons.

The MBP runs hot already with a 5400; imagine it with a 7200. Some people are willing to take the risk, because they use intensive programs, like the Adobe CS3 suite. Others aren't. In fact, a lot of the MBP's that are brought to the Genius Bar have reported 7200 HD's burning up their case. Others haven't. It's just the risk you'd have to take with a more intense drive.

Some people prefer space over speed. The biggest 5400 drive is 250; the biggest 7200 drive is 200.

So no, this isn't a silly question at all.
Click to expand...

Just a small point the largest 5400 is 320GB but soon to be 500GB ( next month)
 
bubble27 said:
Does the 7200 generate alot more Heat than the 5400??

:confused:
Click to expand...

No. The Hitachi 7200 and the WD 5400 that are being discussed do not generate a substantial amount of heat. You can go to their respective websites and look up their specs. The drives are both cutting edge and purposely designed to control energy use and heat dissipation. I've been running the 7200 for about 3 weeks and do movie editing and Ap2 work, both of which are munching RAM and processor cycles, and there is no noticeable heat build up in my MB. The fans spin up, but that is mainly due to the processor running around 75 degrees.
 
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