I put a Seagate 320GB 7200rpm in a stock 2.53GHz. It's quicker but it's not a huge difference. The 7200rpm does have a little more noise and vibration than the 5400rpm. If I had it to do again, I probably won't bother getting the 7200rpm (unless maybe it was a 500GB). The stock Hitachi 5400rpm drive had basically the same benchmark numbers as the 200GB 7200rpm drive in my previous MBP.
This is the debate I'm under. Do I get the 320GB 7.2k drive, or the 500GB 5.4k? I'm leaning towards the latter, seeing as how I'm not exactly disappointed with the current performance from the 5.4k stocker.
When I ordered mine on the phone the sales rep offered me a free upgrade to the 7200 rpm so I took it, I am also waiting for a 500GB 7200rpm Drive. Would like a SSD but still not big enough and still to expensive compared to HD's
The noise doesn't seem worth it to me. I'm just sticking with the stock 320GB 5200 RPM drive, with the intent to upgrade to an Intel SSD when they come down in price. The drive replaceability of the new MacBooks is one of their coolest features.
Where are you guy's getting your 500gig HDD? All I can find is stuff for the old MBP. Is it easy enough to install myself. I'm kinda a techie but this is my first MBP in a few years. Thanks.
I disagree. Even though having more capacity is nice, I believe that even the newer 5400rpm drives are still a bit sluggish. They do the trick if your just a web browser or listen to music. But the 7200 drives really are speedy.
Probably not too much since it really depends on your CPU speed. However if both the original and converted file are writing to the same drive, then probably a little speed increase, or at least less of a slowdown.
there should be little to nothing at all for gains in handbrake. even a 5400 or 4200k harddisk are far beyond the capability of your cpu to saturate the bandwidth. the harddisk will make a huge difference with transfers and reads especially if you are doing massive file moving or copying but that means that the harddisk is the bottleneck, not the cpu trying to encode a file at about 2x realtime. even 4x realtime would not saturate a 4200k drive.