1GB 5400 + 16 GB SSD v. 1GB 7200 HD

I apologize if this has been already asked, but the search function is rather obsolete. I will be using my computer for everyday things such as gaming, media, internet browsing, etc. It will also likely be the Lenovo Y500. Which HD should I opt for and why? Thanks!

 

First, I assume you mean 1TB HDD, right?

While the 16GB SSD (used as cache; Intel Smart Response or otherwise) will be faster overall, I would suggest you avoid both options.

Get a 240/256GB SSD or larger and the 1TB HDD for the most performance and longevity from your system.

I also suggest Win8x64 Pro and 16GB RAM or more with your new setup.

Yeah; even for 'everyday' things like you've stated... the 10% extra cost on the complete system (a 'real' SSD and the O/S and RAM) will give you back more than 100% over the life of the system in productivity and closer to 700% in 'responsiveness'.

In comparision; the small SSD + HDD setup you propose will give you around 30% increase average productivity and the 'responsiveness' will be variable depending if the files you are currently accessing are currently residing in the (way, way, way too small) cache.

While the search engine on this site truly does suck - google with the 'site:notebookreview.com' tag is still working...

 

Thanks for the reply. The laptop only comes with those two options (yes, I meant TB) unfortunately. If I understand you, you recommend the HD +SSD option, correct?

 

If it's not offered, then consider buying your own SSD, will be much cheaper likely anyhow.

 

Yeah, HTWingNut got it: if the manufacturer doesn't offer it - buy and install one yourself afterwards (and save money on the small cache SSD at the same time).


Good luck.

 

That's in the future, all I'm asking is which option I should purchase my laptop with for the time being. They are the same price, btw. Thanks

 

If they are the same price, then I would prefer the 7200RPM option (up to 60%+ faster on everything; rather than 30% faster on some (cached) things).

I know others will disagree - but a small SSD is worse than a good HDD imo (eventually).

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...ades/441674-so-many-tests-so-little-time.html


See:
AnandTech - A Month with Apple's Fusion Drive


Anand Lal Shimpi said:

I agree with Anand: 256GB or larger SSD is superior - 128GB cache SSD is bearable - anything smaller and you're just kidding yourself.

 

Yep, I'd agree with the 7200rpm 1TB option.... 5400's are feeling slower and slower every day, and 16GB SSD isn't big enough to make much of a difference.

Go with the single faster hard drive. You can always upgrade to an SSD later and keep the hard drive for storage when you do.

 

Same here. Agree with the 7200RPM. Cache drives, unless it's 64GB really aren't all they're cracked up to be. And with a 64GB you can easily install your OS and pretty much all your apps on it, so I'd go that route anyhow with a 7200RPM HDD. Heck my kids have had 60GB SSD's in their netbooks for a couple years now and still has 25GB+ free with Windows, a few dozen TV shows, and a few (albeit older light) games installed.

 

Thanks everyone!

 

You're welcome.

(I'm still shocked they agreed with me! Lol...).

 

I agree that the 7200rpm single drive is the better choice, but the difference between 5400rpm vs 7200rpm isn't nearly as great as you pretend it is. With two identical drives, one being 7200rpm and one being 5400rpm, it isn't even possible for the 7200rpm drive to be more than 33% faster than the 5400rpm drive. Hard drives are getting faster all the time. 7200rpm 3.5" drives are faster than their 2.5" counterparts, yet even a modern 5400rpm 2.5" drive is as fast as any 7200rpm 3.5" drive from a few years ago.

Four 2.5" Hard Drives From 500 GB To 1 TB, Benchmarked : Four New 2.5" Hard Drives, Benchmarked

7200rpm and 5400rpm seem a lot less important these days. It seems to be most important to pick a specific drive that is fast. As you can see, many current 7200rpm drives fall behind many current 5400rpm drives in performance.

 

If you read my links, you will see the supporting evidence why the HDD's I compared then were much faster than the 33% nominal theoretical difference indicates it should be.

As the article you link to states:

I have been saying the above on these forums since 2009 - while higher data density makes a drive's sequential speed go faster - the 'responsiveness' goes down because of the 'jitter' introduced by needing to wait several revolutions of the platter to ensure the data read is from the correct track (effectively waiting for the head to stop 'bouncing' between tracks as it zips across the platter).

With the above said; I still take that into account in my previous posts. How? By stating that if you're comparing the same generation drives, the 7200RPM drive will always be faster than the 5400RPM drive in real world use. NOT BENCHMARKS.

Real world is the only criteria I put any stock in. Benchmarks just indicate/predict what that real world might be (at best, at worst; they're just a useless number/score which is what benchmarks are most of the time).


When used in actual real world workloads at least, 7200RPM drives are up to 60% faster (or more, depending on the workload) vs. 5400RPM drives.

While I agree that some 5400RPM drives are better than some 7200RPM drives (and especially if we're comparing across different generations - which makes no sense...), I am only talking about top flight drives here (and for me, the best balance in mobile HDD technology has been Hitachi TravelStars).

The Seagate Hybrid drive does offer a considerable advantage over even a 7200RPM drive - but that is not an option (it seems) for the OP.

I still see that huge difference everyday when I am working on similar/identical systems except one has the HDD replaced/upgraded with a 7200RPM while the others have 5400RPM versions of the same gen technology inside.

While the 7200RPM versions have completed the maintenance needed to bring the systems up to date in all aspects before I leave the clients offices (software updates/upgrades, driver updates, Windows updates and any repartitioning and/or defragging with PerfectDisk that was needed), the 5400RPM powered systems are usually left running overnight doing some of the maintenance and especially the PD defragging because they are almost twice as slow.



So, yeah - no 'pretending' here... read my original links for the proof; or start using a 5400RPM drive for a few weeks/months and see what a huge performance jump it is to go to the same gen 7200RPM version in the same machine and the same workflow (as I did in the links I provided).

Benchmarks are not useful in predicting what real world use will be. In fact, in that respect they are beyond useless.

That is what return policies are for: try for yourself in your own system and your own workflow. That is the only way to 'know' as I do. Theoretical and 'by the numbers' is always trumped by real world results (no matter how the benchmark makers push/market their latest and greatest 'number generator').


Hope this helps.

 

Tiller, you keep throwing around your same proof for 7200rpm vs 5400rpm everywhere. Over 3 years ago you tested a then 2 year old 5400rpm drive which was known for having lackluster performance even when it was new, to a brand new top of the line drive that was pretty much the fastest 7200rpm drive you could get at the time.

Trust me, I know those Toshibas were SLOW. In 2009 I bought a 500GB model of the generation after yours. I knew it was among the slowest ones, but it also was the most power efficient mechanical drive you could buy at the time, very quiet, and it was as high capacity as you could get on a laptop drive when I bought it.

If you could explain how it could even be theoretically possible for 7200rpm drive to be more than 33% faster than an otherwise identical 5400rpm drive, I am all ears. And no benchmarks ever show a difference even close to this large between drives of the same generation from the same manufacturer. But of course, you don't put any faith into benchmarks besides your own. However, in my real world testing, going from 4 to 8GB or more of RAM provides more of a benefit than 5400 to 7200rpm.

On my last gaming desktop I built, I used a spare 5400rpm laptop drive while I waited to decide on a new hard drive. It never gave me any trouble and I forgot about it, so I never bothered to change it. Theoretically some of my high capacity storage hard drives are faster. In 2005 I bought 10000rpm WD Raptors for my main desktop after hearing all the hype from everyone in the year after they were released. After that I never bought raptors again, but I always had the highest performance 7200rpm 3.5" drives out at the time as my C drives, and bought the most cost-efficient high capacity 3.5" drives when I needed more storage or to replace older storage drives. In the laptop I am using at this moment, I have the fastest 7200rpm drive I could find. So I am no alien to fast and slow hard drives. But really, there isn't a huge difference. Sometimes I can feel it, most of the time I can't.

It isn't like you are going from a mechanical drive that can't max out SATA-1 to an SSD that is maxing out SATA-3. There was a time when I would have agreed that the difference was huge, but those days are long gone. They are much closer in performance than they ever have been.

 

That Toshiba drive was not power efficient at all:

See:
Toshiba MK3252GSX (320 GB) : WD and Toshiba Join the 320 GB 2.5" HDD Club

And while the drives were tested in identical (and I mean Identical) setups, you're correct that tech-wise, they are about 2 years apart.

But I have not posted my findings (on this forum, at least) with same gen storage setups - because they mirrored what those links gave previously...


You don't have to believe that the difference isn't that large in real world usage - but it is not up to me to get you to believe - you do your own similar testing and offer your results here if you want to contribute to this topic.

Just saying you don't believe it doesn't mean much at all though.