5400rpm vs 7200rpm & CPU questions.

Hey I've been hearing that a 500gb 5400rpm is just as fast a 320gb 7200rpm. Is this correct? Also how much does a Q9100 cost, that is not a ES? And how much would a 1080p or 1200p monitor cost and how hard is it to upgrade from a laptop I already own.

 

Yes. The benchmarks are pretty close.

If you look on Amazon, about $940.00.

If I understand you correctly, there is likely little chance that you can after-market upgrade the monitor in your notebook. There is no such thing as a 1200p monitor?

 

Oh shoot... How much does a Q9000 cost? also are ES safe at all?

 

The increased density allows the 500GB 5400 RPM read data faster than a lesser capacity 7200 RPM drive, the exact speed comparison is hard to say but it should be faster. Remember individual model performance also varies. I havent had one in reverse to test but my 320GB 7200 RPM drive benches signifigantly faster than my 250GB 5400 RPM. All my higher than 250 gb drives are 7200 rpm though so i cant really test the idea.

Sites like GentechPC offer the cpu's as an upgrade at slightly above cost, to account for labor and paste. So based on GenTechs price i would say they are probably purchasing it for no lower than 880 bucks.

 

1200p monitor is 1900x1200 isnt it, 1200p is the 16:9 HD res.

 

I honestly don't know? I've never heard of a 1200p monitor before.

 

1200P does not imply 16:9 HD res, 1200P implies the screen has 1200 vertical lines of resolution and is progressive scan.

In AVCHD 1080i can actually be 4:3 1440x1080 interlaced. TV resolutions are usually short rated to Vertical Lines and Aspect Ratio and not the horizontal.

 

Depending upon the notebook, you may be able to upgrade the display; but it's often pretty much the hardest bit to replace - though suprisingly cheap.

 

Eh wow... I actually thought processors were cheaper for some reason... So would you guys say ES are safe at all?

By the way these info's are very helpful guys.

 

What are you doing that you need a $1,000 CPU?

 

Just wondering... Why does the mobility quad cost so much? Also do they even sell the Q9000 on amazon. Can't find it for some reason.

 

Third option to the HDD mix, especially if wanting bang-per-buck performance. Consider a small SSD + HDD via hotswappable optical bay caddy (see sig). Eg: 64GB G.Skill Falcon or Corsair P64. Can improve os and app response as well as improve battery life, whilst using your existing 2.5" HDD as a data repository.

 

Because not many people need one, hence demand is low and price is high. If you don't encode videos or do intensive mathematical calculations or play GTA IV, then you don't need a quad core.

 

WRONG. 320gb 7200rpm drive are SUPERIOR in performance due to superior access times which is far more important than data density.

 

oh my word, someone on the internet is wrong?

Access times are not always superior. If I have a 100GB 5.4k HDD with less platters then there is less space in which I have to seek the data in comparison to say a 7.2k 100GB HDD with twice as many platters. Also, the access times on some drives, the differences is like 2ms, but the average read/write speeds can actually be higher on some 5.4k drives. They are not all created equal.

Finally, it also depends on what you want to do with your HDD. If you need to store more than 320GB of information on your internal drive, then I don't give a damn about access times, a 7.2k RPM 320GB drive is going to be inferior to a 5.4K 500GB drive seeing that the first simply cannot do what you need it to.

Anyway, read this thread re the comparison between the two. This has been discussed time and time and time again. http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=59053&page=3

And here is a nice little comparison of the real life speed differences: http://techreport.com/articles.x/9378/4

 

I'm hugging my single platter 7200.4.

 

You sound like you really know what you're talking about!

 

That is an inaccurate statement.

For example: 500GB/5400rpm WD5000BEVT outperforms Seagate 7200.3/320GB by a large margin.

Actually even 320GB/5400rpm WD3200BEVT is faster than the Seagate 7200.3/320GB in most situations. ( Source)

When talking about hard drives it's better not to make generalizations.

 

Simply too funny!!!!!! You cherry pick a file copy benchmark which obviously a higher density drive will perform well in yet you neglect real-world every-day usage like loading windows and multitasking where a 7200rpm drive SMOKES the 5400rpm units due to superior access times.

People hear me now. Many people here need to get properly educated in how hard drive specs translate to real-world performance.

 

Yes, people hear you now, but hopefully not for long...

 

A. They have the same density.

B. WD3200BEVT outperforms Seagate 7200.3 in many other benchmarks.

This is the overall Worldbenchscore, which involves about 11 real-world every-day tasks (Office, image processing, media player etc.)

Again it depends on what drives you're comparing. But generally speaking this is the strong area of 7200 rpm drives, you are right about that.

 

personal experience is 7200rpm drives are FAR superior, I just upgraded the 320Gb 5400rpm fujitsu drive in my new lappy to a western digital 320Gb 7200rpm drive and the performance gains are as noticable as when I upgraded my previous laptop from a T2300 to a T7600

 

Well you just upgraded from one of the slower 5400rpm drives to the fastest 7200rpm drive.

So you're right that drive is far superior.

 

Phil, as a moderator you should know better than to post misinformation....

What you posted is a system/CPU performance results where HD performance does NOT play a roll in. I actually laughed when you stated "WD3200BEVT outperforms Seagate 7200.3 in many other benchmarks" You see what you dont understand is that in those benchmarks the HD has NOTHING to due with the results as they are not HD benchmarks. It seems clear that you have never even personally used ANY of those benchmarks before as you would know this.

 

Sorry but this made me chuckle.

Those benchmarks were run to test the different HDDs. All that was changed was the HDDs; therefore that must be what has caused the change in scores and also therefore the graphs that Phil presented (and as were posted in a link by me) are accurate for this particular comparison.

If you had clicked the "previous page link" then you would have seen this:



Not trying to make anybodies fireworks wet here, but it's always a good idea to do your research before telling a respected member of this community that they are wrong.

 

Actually all those benchmarks are ran at exactly the same system with the same CPU. The only different component was the hard drive, so guess what caused the differences in performance.

You are right. I have never worked with Worldbench.

 

LOLz. This type of logic is INEXCUSABLE. Either you guys dont know how to properly benchmark or you are very inexperienced. Because that benchmark was a CPU/subsystem benchmark (that had NOTHING to do with HD performance) you WILL get variations due to various system/3rd party processes deciding to run and taking up cpu resources at any given time during the testing. This is why many reviewers run 3 passes and take the average.

The scores were within 1% and the HD has VERY little to do with it as the benchmark which was ran tested CPU and its subsytem and didnt even TOUCH the HD.

Do you understand what you are saying here? I want to make this very clear, what you are saying is that one HD is faster than another because you ran a benchmark on the CPU / CPU subsystem of the computer which has NOTHING to do with the HD. Its mind boggling...

 

It's just to easy to point out the errors in your logic. If the HD performance "had NOTHING to do with" than why would the Samsung SSD score 10% faster than the Seagate 5400rpm drive.

Ah now you're changing the subject. Interesting. Actually I don't know how many times they ran their test.

 

If everyone else is so incorrect on everything then the burden of proof is on you.

Why dont you show us all of those benchmarks that supposedly back up your position?

 

I am not going to argue the point further except to say this:

1. Look at the image I posted. Does it not say "All tests were run 3 times and the average taken"........... I trust the reviews from Toms Hardware, I've checked some of their stats against my own hardware and they are accurate.

2. I did not (and never have) said that the 7200RPM drives are not ever better than the 5400RPM drives. Simply that in some cases the 5.4k drives are better.

Now, if you can do something other than tell us that we are wrong, then by all means do so. Otherwise, kindly move along.

 

I missed that one. Good that you mentioned.

 

Someone please ban this asshat. It's painfully obvious by now that the guy is nothing but a troll.

 

Sorry but my points are very valid (and correct).

 

Please remind me where your points (if you even had any) were valid. Thus far, you haven't demonstrated anything other than a propensity to cause problems with your belligerent attitude.

 

My very valid point that the benchmarks provided are NOT an indication of drive performance what so ever yet members have been using them to show drive performance. This misinformation must be corrected and I have corrected it.

 

One of your points was about superior access times which you would never know about without benchmarks. You would have to guess what as performing better.

I move alot of data around, photos come out of the camera at about 12 megs a picture so im moving 8 to 16 gb per shoot. I have alot of 35mm slide scans that I move around, DV video is 13GB an hour move one hour of video from the backup drive over eSATA to the main drive for editing is a big deal. Benchmarks typically reflect the transfer speeds I am getting which is important to me.

Sure mass read write speeds wont help applications load faster, but it will help the system hibernate faster. I might not get uncached thumbnails generated as fast as i please, but everything else works fine for normal use the speed isnt life dependant for most people. Even in two different drives performing approximatly the same one drive will have advantages and disadvantages in comparions. They were talking relative performance not a particular aspect of its performance.

You really think someones going to get such horrible performance from the 5400 rpm drive that their going to throw the computer across the room? I think not, though I personally will take the 7200 rpm model just because I can usually afford the difference in price.

 

I don't see how that is a valid point, especially regarding the Worldbench figures.

Worldbench is a benchmarking tool produced by PC World Magazine, which includes special versions of various "every-day" applications that are run on PCs. The benchmark runs test scripts that "fake" user inputs for the typical tasks performed in these applications and monitors performance. When the benchmark concludes with all the different applications, it restarts the computer for a fresh test.

Therefore, if all other hardware aspects remain constant (as is the case here), the benchmark would reflect, on a certain scale, the performance differences between various hard drives in these everyday applications (rather than in figures such as access times and file transfer speeds, which all play separate roles in generating performance differences).

 

No, benchmark tests are created to find this weeks winning lotto numbers.

Dont be an idiot, stop trolling garbage or you will get banned.