When will a 320GB 7200rpm laptop HD come out?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by RedTomato, Mar 17, 2008.

  1. RedTomato macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #1
    I'm looking for a new HD for my macbook which is stuffed full to capacity.

    My two options are:

    - a 200GB 7200rpm HD,

    - or a 320GB 5400rpm HD.

    I like both speed and capacity. I'm not keen on the 200GB as to be honest, it is not much of a increase on my current 120GB drive - I'll fill up the extra space in a couple of weeks.

    The 320GB is more like it, but it comes with a slower speed. Any idea when a 320gb at 7200rpm will come out?

    Seems we've been stuck at the current speeds and sizes for a long time. The first 200gb laptop drive at 7200 rpm came out last summer, and it's been almost 9 months now.

    Even a 500gb laptop drive at 5400rpm would do me, if it came out soon.
     
  2. Markleshark macrumors 603

    Markleshark

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    Carlisle, Up Norf!
    #2
    While there will be a difference in speed between the 7200RPM drive and the 5400RPM drive, I don't see it being a huge leap.

    You may notice a slight difference on slower machines, but to be honest I doubt you'll notice a great deal on last and current generation Macs with ample RAM.
     
  3. weedy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #3
    Buying laptops with huge HDDs is a waste of money.
    Buy the minimum drive + external drive (preferably Time Capsule) - you will get way more for the same cash.
    If you really need to carry your data with you - buy one of those USB/FW-driven "pocket" HDDs - they are small (fits in pocket), light (~200grams or less than half a pound), cheap (like $100) and only require USB/FW to operate (no power source).
     
  4. Fuzzbear macrumors regular

    Fuzzbear

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    #4
    While I generally agree..sometimes its just not practical to carry extra hard drives around just to access your data.
     
  5. RedTomato thread starter macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #5
    It might be a waste of money to you, but it isn't to me. I need huge storage on my laptop. I already own the laptop, I just need to replace the HD, which I'm happy to do myself.

    I also don't want to carry around an external - it's more junk to carry and fiddly, and also drains battery much faster than having just the internal drive. I already have one, and it doesn't match what I need.
     
  6. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #6
    But how do you get around the fact that programs need to be installed off the boot drive. Also Time Machine seems to be designed for people backing up their internal drives.
     
  7. weedy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #7
    I meant Time Capsule. And it's pretty hard to install 100+ GBs of applications, I think OP just wants to carry his movies around.
     
  8. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #8
    Hard drive performance is mainly affected by:

    1. RPM
    2. Data density on the hard drive
    3. How full the hard drive is.

    A 320 GB 5400 RPM hard drive beats the 200 GB 7200 RPM at (2) and (3). All hard drives slow down in the same way depending how many percent full they are. But if you put 180 GB on both drives, one is 90% full and the other is about 55% full. Once you are using it a lot, the 320 GB drive may be faster than the 200 GB, even at lower RPM.

    Now your question: It will take a while. The 320 GB drive fits about 60% more data on each track. Even at the lower RPM, it has to read 20% more bits per second. At same RPM, the manufacturer needs to increase the read head's ability to read bits at high speed by another 33%.
     
  9. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #9
    Not sure which 320GB your talking about,but if it's the scorpio by WD there
    pretty zippy and are nearly as fast as the 7200 due to the fact they only have
    two platters.So if your 7200 is half full of data the 320GB would give it a run
    for it's money.

    EDIT gnasher729 beat me to it ( i just explained it simpler )
     
  10. RedTomato thread starter macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #10
    Many thanks, it seems that the WD Scorpio 320 is the way to go. The battery life saved by not going to a 7200rpm is a bonus too.

    The old 2.5'' 120GB will go into a pocket external case.

    I wouldn't mind waiting a few weeks to see if a 500GB laptop drive gets released.

    Anything coming down the pipeline on that?
     
  11. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #11
    I bet a faster 7200 rpm drive is just around the corner as soon as the 500 GB 5400 rpm drive is out. I just upgraded the 60 GB drive in my Macbook to 250 GB and it has brought new life to it. I can store all my photos and music on it now and still have 100 GB free.
     
  12. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #12
    Well, there's the first gross overgeneralization of the day, and it's only 8:45 am. :rolleyes:

    Of course they need a power source. What are you talking about?
     
  13. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #13
    Good choice. That or the Samsung 320/5400/8 drive. Bother are at the top of the performance charts.

    There is no difference in battery consumption between 5400 and 7200 rpm drives.

    Samsung's 500 gb drive is delivering to OEMs now. They should show up at the usual places within a few weeks.
     
  14. RedTomato thread starter macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #14
    Oh lovely thanks. Plugging "Samsung 500gb laptop" into google throws up a few references, so it looks good. 5400rpm.

    Price should be about £150 / $300 which compares well per GB to £90 / $180 for the WD scorpio 320.

    Will wait and see, hopefully reviews will be out soon.
     
  15. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #15
    Did the same thing, put all my music and videos on it, and now I don't have 100 GB free :(
     
  16. Fuzzbear macrumors regular

    Fuzzbear

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    #16
    I think he means separate power supply. My 320GB WD Passport is powered via USB.. no external power supply to lug around. I get nervous just having them in my backpack though.
     
  17. Vghty macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #17
    Hi all,

    Recently, I replaced by MBP's build-in drive (120 GB, 5400 rpm) with a 200GB 72000 Seagate Momentus drive. Not only the (xBench) benchmarks are much better now, my computer also feels considerably faster. Especially when doing disk-intensive activities such as installing software, starting Parallels VM's or copying / moving to external sources is way faster. Overall, the computer is more enjoyable

    IMHU, my computer is considerably speedier now and the upgrade was more than worth the costs.

    Possibly, a part of the speed gain could be in having a larger (i.e. less stuffed) drive, and possible by part because I reinstalled everything into a clean install. Still, I believe the drive speed to contribute a lot to a faster computer.

    PS about platters: I am not sure whether it is true what was claimed above about platters (less platters = faster). To me, it would be equally plausible that more platters = more parallel data streams = faster. In any case, the Seagate 200 GB 7200 has two platters, exactly the same as the WD 320Gb 5400 so there is no difference to be exceed in terms of speed as a result of the numbers of platters.

    PS2. Above people also discussed about USB and FW drives powered from the laptop. I would strongly advice FW here, as USB has a current draw limit (500 mA) that has proven to be critical with this types of drives. I had drives that refused to work reliable. The popular twin USB connector is not much help here, as the second USB port will not deliver more than 100 mA because it does not negotiate, and 500+100 = 600 mA is still critical with some drives. Firewire current limits are way above that.

    cheers rudi
     
  18. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #18
    The point is that greater density on a platter provides better performance. If you look at top three notebook drives for sustained write speeds they are (in order) Samsung's 320/5400, WD 320/5400, Hitachi 200/7200. All three are pretty much bunched together that you'd probably not notice any differences. But if you want to spend more money for less capacity, by all means do so.
     
  19. RedTomato thread starter macrumors 68040

    RedTomato

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Location:
    .. London ..
    #19
    That's a pretty expensive upgrade. I have a G4 PB I'd like to replace the drive on, but the labour cost just isn't worth it, and apparently it's pretty hard to DIY. That was one of the major reasons why I bought a MB and not a MBP as drives are one of the things I often replace, and it's much easier to DIY on a MB.


    That's good to know. I have a cheap USB 2.5'' enclosure, and I've tried out most of my old 2.5'' drives (500mb, 4gb, 12gb, 20gb etc). In my experience, the macbook won't supply enough power to spin up 90% of them. Even with two usb connections.

    Looks like I'll have to spend more money on a firewire pocket enclosure.
     
  20. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #20
    I wish I had your Jedi skill to replace my Macbook Pro's hard drive to the 7200 drive. I saw how to do it from Youtube and other places and it just scares me. I had no problems replacing the Macbook hard drive.
     
  21. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #21
    I almost got the 7200, but I understand that the more a 7200 fills up, the slower it gets - down to the 5400 speeds.

    I got the 320 Gig 5400 instead and am happy I did - lots of space!
     
  22. Vghty macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    #22
    Well, in my view it was not that expensive. I bought the drive for around 140 euro, and for 15 euros more I bought myself an external enclosure to put in the old drive. So for 155 Euro I got myself a HD update, and a small external 120GB drive.

    Admittedly, the external case I bought is not FW (which I would definitely prefer as I said above, issue was that I did not find a 2.5 enclosure with FW support that takes SATA disks (all the ones I checked were IDE disks only)

    Great to know. Makes sense. It is, however, the data density that is relevant here, not the number of platters as such as others claimed. If the numbers show the sustained data rate of the drive mentioned in that order, it should be so.
     
  23. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #23
    Surely that means the same thing.Over two platters the density will be greater than it would over three?
     
  24. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #24
    The fewer the platters for a given capacity, the greater the density. Thus they are related.
     
  25. Vghty macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008

Share This Page