External HDD Decision: 2.5" vs 3.5"

So I recently knocked over my 3.5" external HDD while it was writing, so that thing's done for. I'm in the market for a new external HDD, but the 3.5" HDD I had was really heavy and a hassle to lug around in my backpack. I want something smaller and lighter, I'm looking for something greater than 1TB, but the price difference between 2.5" and 3.5" pretty big. So my question is, is it worth it?

Here is a breakdown of the major differences:
1) size
2) weight
3) speed (specifically is there really a difference when I'm just using USB 2.0? my m11x does not have USB 3.0 or eSata)
3) cables (2.5" usually just require a USB whereas 3.5" requires an AC)

I'm thinking about getting this one: Newegg.com - Seagate FreeAgent GoFlex 1.5TB USB 2.0 External Hard Drive

 

I dunno...most of the time USB is your limiting factor for speed, so disk diameter doesn't really matter in that respect. Another thing to consider is that 2.5" HDDs are more robust (the reading arm is moved away from the platter when not reading, meaning that its harder to damage these drives). The smaller platter size also means that its harder to incur damage. I'd go for a 2.5", although obviously that means more $/GB...

 

If you only needed ~500GB at a time, then a 2.5" drive would be perfect. (or a number of them, if you can organize your files around that)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...DeactivatedMark=False&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20

At USB 2.0, max speed for any drive will be ~30MB/s which is much less than that of pretty much any drive nowadays.

 

go with 3.5 it'll be cheaper and faster. Though portability is gone. You can not power a 3.5 inch from usb or peSATA. Also make sure it is usb 3.0 or eSATA. you'll shoot yourself with how slow usb 2.0 is. 30MBps is also the fastest it'll go. 26-31MBps is average. It'll jump around those speeds.

 

Thanks for the comments guys, unfortunately I think my only option will be USB 2.0, bummer, well, at least with the Seagate GoFlex I can just get a USB 3.0 plug if I ever get a compatible laptop. Anyways I'm still leaning towards 2.5" cause weight difference is like 0.62 lbs and 2.25 lbs. And smaller is less likely to break on me? That's definitely a plus in my book.

 

Simple. If you value portability over price, then 2.5". If you value price over portability , then 3.5".

I always say that speed is the LEAST important factor when selecting an external hard drive. Things like, size, weight, compatibility, convenience, price, and capacity are far more important.

Think about what you do with an external hard drive. You use it to store or watch/listen media (videos, music, documents, , etc), all of which run fine with USB 2.0 speeds. Or, you use it to move files from one computer to another. You are not running applications off of the drive. Speed is a nice-to-have and a convenience - but not a necessity.

So which would you value more? Physical size / portability, or price?

 

actually some people care a lot about speed. I bought ym external because i needed speed. I was tired of my slow 7200rpm hardrives in my laptop and got my external 1TB with 7200rpm. I got it to transfer large data quickly and also to load and access games quickly. Speed cna be very important...just depends what the person is using it for.

 

unless you use eSATA, how can a 3.5" faster than 2.5" in usage ? it is limited by the USB port and a 2.5" is fast enough for USB 2.0.

 

Speed is only factor to me if the drive isnt limited by USB2.0 speeds

 

exactly i got an eSATA but that's what i was saying speed can be important but if its usb 2.0 than it makes no difference unless you need latency, which latency an still be affected in usb 2.0. If you use lots of small files a 7200rpm will be faster than a 5400 in usb 2.0

 

if you use a lot of small files, get a flash stick or SDHC card, the latency is at least an order of magnitude faster .

 

true but i am just saying that makes a difference ^^

 

I actually don't recommend 2.5" drives;

1) They are expensive (GB/price ratio) compared to 3.5" externals
2) Sure they are "portable" but that increases the chance you will drop it and last time I checked hard drives did not like being dropped
3) Some portable hard drives have a proprietary connector (some WD) so if the USB or enclosure gets damaged then you are SOL.
4) Some of them aren't as portable as you think (rugged drives)

 

1) True. But that is the price you pay for portability of the drive itself and not having to carry both a USB cable + external power brick that is required for a 3.5" drive.

2) You are just as likely to drop a 3.5" as a 2.5". How does a 3.5" drive being bigger / heavier make it LESS likely that you are going to drop something?

Plus, 2.5" drives are designed to handle shock from drops. It is far less likely to damage a 2.5" drive than a 3.5" drive when the heads are parked.

3) I've never seen a proprietary connector before. Every USB drive I have ever seen uses either USB-A, miniUSB, or microUSB. Perhaps you saw a USB size that you were not used to?

4) People looking for portability buy small portable enclosures. To say that you shouldn't buy a 2.5" drive because some 2.5" drives are ruggedized is like saying that you shouldn't ever buy a laptop because some laptops arrive DOA.

 

If you know that sometimes you'll have to bring with you the hard drive...there is no choice, you have to buy a 2,5".
Do you want bring with you a drive that's bigger than your notbook?
PS: if you can use only the usb 2.0 i suggest you to buy a 5400rpm har drive, that runs cooler and quiter than a 7200rpm one.

 

I would say unless one needs the extra space north of 640GB, 2.5" drive trumps 3.5". The performance difference cannot be realized 99% of the time due to interface limitation. It is all pain(noise, weight, size, extra power supply and cabling), no gain(unless eSATA is used but under such a situation, I would examine the setup as constant external attachment doesn't sound right for me).

 

1) Who cares about portability? If your current HDD isn't big enough then that's your problem. And why would you need to lug around a portable drive around everywhere? That defeats the purpose of a backup. You backup your data and keep the backup drive SAFE. Lugging it around increases the chances it will get dropped and ruh roh your backup is no more.

2) My Seagate FreeAgent sits stationary on my desk, tell me how can it fall down? 2.5" drives get moved around alot increasing the likelihood of it getting dropped.

3) Some of the WD Passport SE I believe? I took one apart and the SATA to USB bridge was soldered onto the hard drive, it was a proprietary WD connector.

4) I'm saying some of the rugged drives make the size much larger (like some of the La Cie drives) which hardly make them more portable than 3.5" portables which some are very sleak and SFF compared to older ones. The Elements is pretty SFF compared to the older MyBook

 

To keep your backup safe, you should keep it at ANOTHER location (house on fire, tornado etc.) and portability becomes important. A simple scenario, home backup left at office(of course it has to be encrypted in some form) and vice versa(if your office IT doesn't have good backup strategy).

If your current HDD in the system is not big enough for regular usage, that should be solved via some other means, not an externally attached 3.5" drive

 

The original poster cares about portability. Just because portability is irrelevant to you, does not mean that it is irrelevant to everyone.

I want something smaller and lighter [than a 3.5" drive]
I'm still leaning towards 2.5" cause weight difference is like 0.62 lbs and 2.25 lbs
​

And you're assuming that the only purpose for an external drive is a backup. There are plenty of other reasons to use an external drive, such as inexpensive bulk storage of media (videos, music, pictures, et) when storing that content on your laptop's primary drive is either not feasible or not convenient. The OP may have an SSD as a primary drive, and have limited space on that SSD for media content. Or, the OP may need to move this content around between several computers, and an external drive is the easiest way to do it. There are many other purposes for external drives besides just a backup medium.

By your logic, a 2.5" drive that sits stationary on your desk won't fall down either.

But that is beside the point. The original poster specifically needs a drive that s/he can "lug around in a backpack." S/he specifically needs a drive that is *NOT* intended to sit on a desk all day.

Yes, better durability is a good thing. But better durability because a 3.5" drive is so large and inconvenient to move around that you'll just want to keep it on your desk all day, is not a good thing in the OP's case.

I was not aware that Western Digital made a drive that connected in such a manner. But that is easy enough to avoid. Just buy a model that doesn't have a proprietary connector, or buy separate drive + enclosure. That is a rather simple and straightforward workaround to avoid the risk of proprietary connectors.

Ok. I can only see the size problem of ruggedized 2.5" drives being a problem if someone were to just blindly buy a 2.5" external drive without ever looking at a single picture of the product, reading the specs for the product, or reading a review for the product. But that is not a very good reason to recommend against a 2.5" drive, because nobody buys a product in this "blind" fashion. The OP wanted a portable drive. S/he can easily see how un/portable a drive is by just looking at a picture before purchasing.

 

Yeah, my last 3.5" got knocked over because I tripped over the power cord. Whenever anything needs to reach the wall it becomes a hazard, especially when I don't keep it in one place often, so sometimes I don't bother with wire management.

I think most people use external HDD for two purposes: backups and media storage. For backups I can totally see why you wouldn't need to move it around. If you have a lot of TV shows, movies, music, pictures, etc. that you can't stuff in your laptop's HDD, then it's perfectly logical that you need it to be very mobile, because who wants to move around files (pick and choose movies you want to watch) from and to the external HDD whenever you leave home?

Anyways, great debate, though I'm still not convinced that the cheaper price of 3.5" justifies its shortcomings. I think I'm going to go for this one:
Amazon.com: Seagate FreeAgent GoFlex 1 TB USB 2.0 Ultra-Portable External Hard Drive STAA1000100 (Black): Electronics
100 bucks isn't too bad for 1TB, if anyone has any other suggestions for me to look at please slap on a reply. Thanks again everyone.

 

This. This times 1000. I've heard this so many times you wouldn't believe it.

Like I said originally, 2.5 is a better bet. More rugged (heads get parked away from platters), efficient, less to trip over . For the OP, definitely recommended. I see the value in 3.5, but really only if you're interested in eSATA...

 

Despite my extreme clumsiness, I have never knocked over my Free Agent. I make sure wires don't get tangled. It's all relative but a stationary drive has a less chance of getting damaged THAN a 2.5" portable drive that is carried everywhere. Just like you have a higher chance of having a car accident the more you drive. It only makes sense.

You just said it above kent, you must understand when using an SSD as primary drive you KNOW it has limited space. So you know you screwed yourself. I know my Vostro 1500 only has 1 HDD slot but it is a dedicated gaming laptop and won't be doing anything much else, but I acknowledge it.

As for the 2.5" I'm talking about portable drives.

Well know you know kent, and some people don't know they have a proprietary model. I'm not sure exact which WD models are affected by the soldered on bridge. And I'm reading around many other manufacturers are consider doing that because they hardly make money on them, and then for people taking them apart and putting them into laptops only adds insult to injury.

As for the rugged drive, I was just giving an example. Not all 2.5" portables drives are made alike.

 

costco has the 1.5tb you mentionned earlier with usb 3 now on sale for 139.00

 

Costco - Seagate 1.5TB FreeAgent® GoFlex? Ultra?portable Drive

Wow, that's unbelievable, but how come the 1tb and the 1.5 have the same price... maybe it's a misprint?

 

For an external drive that is meaningless. It might matter for your C drive where there are tons discontinuous tiny reads and writes all the time. This just does not happen on an external.

 

I fail to see why internal is different from external.

 

I think he's trying to say because you're never going to use your external as your C: drive you're not likely to have lots of small reads and writes.

 

Technically, nothing stops one from using an external drive for small read/write, Microsoft's Readyboost for that matter does just that. A case would be using an external drive for SVN/git repository.

However, using an external drive for anything but occasional bulk sequential read/write is not something one should do, and why I said a situation like that needs to be examined.