HDD: What to get?

Hey guys. I recently bought a lenovo x200, which I am very pleased with it, but the 160gb hitachi 5400 rpm drive is just too slow.

I have debated (and still am) switching to an ssd, but I am having a hard time justifying the cost of a 60gb ocz agility and the lack of space I'd have to deal with. 120gb would be idea, but $370 for a drive that used to be about $100 less 7 months ago is hard to swallow. I already own a 120gb agility, so I know the benefits first hand.

What would be the best hdd, speed wise? If there is not a major difference in real world application, I'd rather get the quietest drive. 3% to 5% speed differences is not noticeable, especially if that speed includes a noisy/hot drive.

I would prefer a 320gb drive or larger only for platter density.

I've been looking at the WD scorpio black 320gb drive & blue 640gb and the momentum 7200.4 320gb & 500gb models as well. I am a little worried about seagate's reliability and I don't ship hard drives that have sensitive info, so RMA (unless its DOA or dies very very quickly) is not an option.

I plan on running win 7 and possibly dual or tri booting Ubuntu / OSx86 (working project) and I need some decent space (more than 60gb) to deal with that, as well as possibly running a virtual machine.

I've read a lot of comparisons between the seagate and the WD, but I can't get any good opinions besides "go ssd" which doesn't cut it space wise for the cost right now. That's why I'm here, to get a proper point of view.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for any and all help!

 

I have heard a Hitachi drive - 7K500 or something like that is the fastest around.
(assuming its a 2,5" drive)

You may want to look at Intel SSDs though - they should release a 300GB one within the next few months - and a new generation in 1 year - Intel SSDs are very quick and with the new model you can hope prices drop a bit.

 

^ http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=431402 - that's the post that goes over performance of the hitachi 7k500 drive.

that's the best one you can get for now, i believe. definitely go for ssd in case you want something crazier. you can always get an external 500gb drive for storage - it all depends on what you need more - performance or space?

 

The Hitachi 7K500 is really fast with sequential reads and writes. However, the 320GB Scorpio Black has faster acces times and random reads and writes.

In real life it will be impossible to notice any difference between the two. The Scorpio Black may even be faster than the 7K500 during heavy multi tasking.

Then get the Hitachi 7K500. If you want to save money go for WD5000BEVT which is quite fast too. Don't take the WD6400BEVT as it's priced at a premium and slower than the 500GB.

By the way, I had a Intel G2 in my HP DM1 (cheap ultraportable). While the speedboost was impressive, in the end I did not really think it was worth it for my usage. It was like going shopping for groceries in a Ferrari. So I sold the G2 and I'm back to an old spinner. I was happy the price of Intel G2 had gone up a little so I managed to sell it at the same price I bought it.

 

I'll also second/third the 7K500 Hitachi as well.

3 to 5% difference? Depends on what you're measuring, how you've set up the HD and whether or not you're using a product like PerfectDisk to defrag and optimize your mechanical HD experience. But, even if you do all of the above, how about over 40% improvement in real-world use like:

Quote:
"43GB File folder of pictures, music, program files, various install files, ISO's, documents, etc. copied from one partition to another:
Tosh: 63 minutes; 7K500: 44 minutes. Over 40% improvement. "

From this thread here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5609040#post5609040


Or, more info of my 7K500 setup/tests here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=441674


Bottom line: The 7K500 is currently the most capacious and fastest mechanical HD available. Highly recommended!

 

If 250GB is enough the 250GB 7K500 would be a very good choice. Only one platter so slightly lower acces times, power consumption and noise levels.

 

Hitachi 7K500 for sure... i would get the 500GB version... more space and slightly better performance than 250GB version...

 

I expect that the 250GB will perform better because it has lower acces times.

 

Phil,

I could/might agree to the lower power consumption and noise levels (theoretically, anyways), but how can the same model drive have lower access times - except for 1 or 2 platters?

The access times depends on the speed of rotation and the distance the heads travel (from the outermost 'edge' of the platter to the innermost 'center' of the platter). Whether we have one platter or two will not shorten these distances, nor will it speed up or slow down the rotational speed of each platter.

As Sean473 suggested, the higher capacity model will be faster because of it's dual platter design - a higher total capacity (MB's) will be at the fastest outer edge of the platter than a single platter can offer. This is what will give it an edge over a single platter design.

 

I'd buy on price as they all perform about the same in real world usage. The noise issue is of a lottery as it varies from one drive to the next, even with drives of the same make/model. If you get a noisy drive you can always exchange it.

 

Here's the deal.

The laptop is to help with it type stuff and learning on my own. I will probably end up playing with virtual machines on the drive. I know that takes up more room than an affordable ssd can provide. Along with ubuntu, and possibly osx, it's a lot of room.

I don't plan on storing music/movies on the drive. I just need room to grow. All my games and CPU heavy work are done on a quadcore desktop with an ssd.

 

I think that more importantly, the noise is dependent on the notebook chassis it is installed in and the user's hearing 'quirks' rather than any significant variance of the HD's themselves (at least in the noise department).

 

I just looked up the specs on the travelstar and it is 12.5mm thick. My hdd bay only holds 9.5mm drives. So the hitachi is out.

 

it's 9.5mm... where did u read it 12.5 mm? only some 640GB , 750GB and 1 TB drives are 12.5mm...

 

Well you think a dual platter will be faster, I think the single platter will be faster.

I base that not on theory but on my experience with single and dual platter Scorpio Black.

Either way the difference will be small.

 

Synthetickiller,

You're looking at the wrong 7K500:

See:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822145274

Back to $80 too!

 

Thanks Phil!

Would you have any data on how a single platter was faster than a dual platter Scorpio Black?

I agree the difference will be small. Why I believe the bigger (dual platter) HD will be faster in real world use is because it will have twice as much capacity at the fastest 'outermost' part of the platter, negating any small access time improvement in the single platter models.

 

Acces times are relatively more important than throughput. I think one head on one platter works more efficient than two heads on two platters.

For the data, don't have it at hand.

 

I really think it is a bit of a lottery. I've seen two of the same drives - one noisy, the other not in the same notebook.

I would agree that access times are more important unless the file is large. Boot times are more throughput dependent, which is my the 7k500 excels there, though not hugely slow in my opinion.

 

Phil,

I'm also talking about access times though - the fastest are at the outermost tracks and with the dual platter setup, twice as much O/S and/or data is going to be accessed at the fastest possible speed than in the single platter drive.

As for the one head/one platter is faster than two heads/two platters - the heads are linked so that they move as one (I'm pretty sure) so, again, I don't see any advantage there either for one or the other.

 

Two heads working together creates overhead.

 

In theory!

This is where NCQ comes in and saves the day.

 

In theory.

On a different note: following your theory 'the higher throughput will be the fastest', the WD6400bevt would be faster than WD5000bevt. In real world performance it's not. See Tomshardware.

 

I read a site claiming that it was 12.5mm. Odd honestly.

Thanks for the newegg link! Newegg beats amazon only by not charging shipping. Very very close, but I think newegg would ship faster as well. $110 is a stretch for a 500gig drive as the 640gig is only $120, BUT the performance of the hitachi is a lot better.

This hdd will be temporary (ambiguous term as you'll read on....). I will keep this as a primary drive untill SSDs are affordable enough to provide at least 120-200 gigs at a fair price. Since the laptop is on my primary computer and I don't do the heavy lifting so to speak with it, no use it dropping in bleeding edge tech to not utilize it.

As well... once I am done using it as a primary drive, I'll most likely drop this into my desktop (I have an SSD cage that holds two drives, so this can be mounting appropriately) or I may build a super sff rig and use that as a primary drive/storage drive for a linux box. That's why I want a good drive because once it is upgraded, it won't be thrown to the side.

The Hitachi looks first rate guys, especially after looking at the specs and comparisons.

Edit: cost wise.....

320gb 7200rpm = $80 = $0.25 per gig
500gb 7200rpm = $110 = $0.22 per gig

The 500gb is cheaper, but I also may not need that extra 180 gigs of room, although it is nice to have. What do you guys think is a more appropriate purchase? At this point, I can't really decide.

 

Phil,

I don't think I ever stated that. I also ignored the WD6400BEVT because of it's much slower access times.

Access times depends on the rotational speed. We both agree that the closest we are to the edge of the platter the fastest this speed will be?

Access times also depends on how far into the platter the data needed to be read is located. With a two platter design, the same amount of data (let's say our 20GB O/S install), will be more towards the outside edge than the same amount of data on a single platter would be. ( This is one reason I use partitioning and PerfectDisk - to ensure that this state is more probably than not).

Taking both of these into consideration - the two platter design will be faster over a significantly bigger chunk of the data we install/need on our HD. Because there will be more of this data at the edges of both platters than there is in the one platter design.

Altogether, this is what makes the two platter drive effectively faster - not the fact that it has more 'throughput' but because it has more data at the fastest part of the 'Access Times' curve.

 

Don't worry about not needing the room - get the Hitachi 7K500.

The Hitachi offers the latest tech for power consumption, noise, heat and of course, performance.

If it is the cheapest as well, this is the definition of 'no brainer'.

 

Tiller, we can theorize all we want, in the end it's about real life data.

I'm not motivated enough but if you are try to dig up a few IOPS scores from WD1600BEKT and WD3200BEKT. You'll need at least a few results for some accuracy.

 

Phil,

That's funny... lol...

You say to me (a non-benchmark believer) to stop theorizing and you point to synthetic 'scores' as your proof? lol...

( Scores which indicate 'theoretical' performance).

No prob! We'll stop here - I think I've made my points appropriately.

Cheers!

 

Of course real world benchmarks would be way better. But I know you don't have them.

So I point you to the next best thing. Something you could actually find if you were interested enough

 

Oh, I have them (in a 'good enough' way for me), but they are not official, is all.

My proof is the 30+ second PS startup times for other's computer systems, while I'm in the 9-11 second times myself. Right up there to SSD's, btw.

And, you're right - I am not interested in the 'next best thing' - benchmarks are like any RAW data - you cannot make a sound business decision using one (or more) of them.

Kinda like politicians and statistics - they'll say whatever you want them to.

 

Ok time for some real data.

WD1600BEKT acces time: 14.4 ms link 14.7ms link
WD3200BEKT acces time: 16.2ms link 15.9 ms link

My point: The single platter WD1600bekt has faster acces times than the two platter WD3200BEKT. For real life performance acces times are relatively more important than transfer rates, so in real life performance the single platter will beat the double platter. Only slightly though.

Of course it would be nice to have some more data, but I'm laying on the couch now. By the way, IOPS results of HDTune show the same picture as shown above.

 

Phil,

Don't want it to seem like I'm butting heads with you; I think we are saying the same thing, but from different perspectives.

I was the strongest believer of the hint that access times gave for real world performance, until I bought the Seagate 7200.4. Toms hardware especially vouched for how fast these drives were - with the benchmarks to back up their statements, but this did little to alleviate my shock when these 'benchmark' monsters where taking over 90 minutes to install Vista on my VAIO. So much for access times, huh?

Also, the links provided make me ask the same questions: is this the same install on the same hardware with the same drivers - etc. etc. etc. I don't think it is - but I'm still surprised at the 2.2 ms difference suggested by those numbers above.

No matter, I will never seriously test a drive less than 500GB in the foreseeable future, so whether it is faster or not is a moot point for me.

I still stand by my statement that in a real install - identical dual platter HD's will be effectively faster than single platter HD's in real tasks - no matter what the benchmarks may suggest.

 

Perhaps your drive was defective? My Seagate has been a solid performer. As for the install, that would be more throughput dependent than the access times.

 

I'm ordering the hitachi 500gb 7200rpm drive.

I appreciate the help guys!

 

Single platter drives are faster than dual platter drives, mainly due to access times. Since the harddrive can only write to one part of the disk at a time, having one platter cuts the amount of head movement down quite substantially, reducing noise, and making for a more efficient drive.
I believe that multi platter drives generate more IOPS, but the single platter drives are pure win in terms of power efficiency, noise, and access times.
I find my single platter 7K320 (160gb) to be faster than the 500gb 7K500 that I had.

I would suggest looking at the WD1600BEKT or the Hitachi 7K320 (160gb model) they are still among the fastest mechanical 2.5" drives for laptops.
I am not sure how the 250gb single platter 7200rpm drives compare, but my 7k320 loaded files faster than the 7k500, so platter density doesnt mean everything.

K-TRON

 

This man speaks the truth. I love my single platter 250GB 7200.4.

 

Yes, I know that you and others have had 'good' 7200.4's - however, the horrible experience I've had was not with 1 but with 4 of them - all returned, over a period of a few weeks (just to make sure the batches were not the same).

 

If there's no real noticeable difference, I think I'll stick with my order of the 500gb drive over the 320gb drive at the same speed. I'm assuming the 320gb drive is one platter.

Is the difference noticeable?

I still have time to cancel my order.

 

AFAIK, there is no 320GB 7200 RPM one platter notebook HD.

 

K-TRON,

I have no doubt that the 160GB HD is faster than the 7K500 - my 200GB 7K200 felt faster than anything I compared it to too. This is because of the signal to noise ratio goes down as the platter density goes up - I called this the extra time it would take for the heads to 'settle' into the track they were trying to read but this article summed it up better:

See:
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3691


Quote:
"...there are 3 factors that are in constant need of balancing when it comes to hard drive design: areal density, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in reading from drive platters, and the use of Error Correcting Code (ECC) to find and correct any errors that occur. As areal density is increases, sectors become smaller and their SNR decreases."


Basically, every HD I compared my 7K200 to would seem 'slower' - but when measured/timed, it was faster. The distinction here was the 'snap' was gone - the Access times were longer, but overall, the drive was faster.

The push to finally sell the 7K200 came when the data I could generate exceeded the capacity of that drive. Needing to be productive vs. merely 'fast' the Scorpio Blue 500GB proved to be a respectable replacement for the 7K200.

Now, about a month into using the Hitachi 7K500 - the Scorpio Blue is sold and performing admirably for someone else.

Meanwhile, the next notebook HD I'll consider needs to trounce the Hitachi's performance - both in raw speed (in actual tasks) and capacity.

Like I mentioned already; the 7K500 is the fastest and most capacious mechanical HD currently available; smaller capacity models just don't cut it for me anymore.

Hopefully, the next step up for me and a lot of others is to 500GB+ SSD's, with no lingering downsides to them (like $$$$ price).

 

The HITACHI Travelstar HD20320 is two 160gb platters?

 

I would guess yes.

It will still be faster than the HD20500 because it's platters will stop farther from the center of the platter, compared to the 500GB's full writable platters which will stop closer to the center (for the extra capacity).

Of course, the exact same thing could be achieved by short stroking the 500GB model to 64% of its capacity too.


Of course, the worse would be one platter that is 250GB and another platter that is the additional 70GB, but I don't think Hitachi would do that, now would they?

 

If there's not a big difference in speed, relative to one another, and a huge jump vs the 160gb 5400rpm drive, i should probably stick with the 500gb model.

 

Synthetickiller, sorry for cluttering up your thread with one platter vs. dual platter conversation but I think it is important to get the facts straight. Let me know if it bothers you and I will move the conversation to a separate thread.

Ehhh..... I thought you're saying dual platter is faster, I'm saying single platter is faster. Or did you change your mind yet?

In the absence of real life benchmarks, the IOPS readings from HDTune are the best indicators of real life performance. If you would have looked at them before buying the Seagate 7200.4, you would have known the Scorpio Black is faster.

If you look at the IOPS readings you'll see that the single platter beats the dual platter in acces times, throughput and IOPS.

 

As long as the 500gb hitachi will be a significant increase over the 160gig 5400rpm drive my laptop came with, I'll be happy, especially if it beats the seagate. 320gb would probably be faster, but having the added space is a bonus for later.

 

No, haven't changed my mind: The single platters may be faster (as indicated) in benchmarks, but in actual use, they are inconsequential as the benefits of dual platters become more 'real world' applicable than any theoretical single platter advantage may seem.

Trying to be more clear: No doubt the better scores should indicate a better 'drive', but only a better drive for the purpose of obtaining a better score. Not mirroring reality at all (at least not mine).

As I stated before, I too believed (past tense) that access times indicated a better drive, but the Scorpio Blue 500GB with it's much worse scores dominated the 4 Seagate 7200.4's I tried with it's superior scores. (Tried 4, 1 could not install Vista, 2 DOA).

Conclusion? Benchmarks are meaningless. See also the last paragraph below.

I'm trying to upload the Scorpio Blue's random access benchmarks so you (and everyone else too) can see how much discrepancy is between the two HD's benchmarks you provided and the drive I actually used for the last 9 months or so, because it was superior in real world use.

Again, for completeness: 1 1/2 hrs to install Vista on the Seagate 7200.4 and about 15 minutes to install on the Scorpio Blue (9+ months ago). Nowhere do the benchmarks predict this behavior.

This is why benchmarks, unless they are run on an identical system with only the 'tested' item being changed, are as reliable to me as fairy tales.

The above is only one side of the discussion we are having though:

Doesn't matter if a single platter 160GB HD is faster than a dual platter 500GB HD. At least not if I need to generate 200GB of data on it. One drive (160GB) is out of the running, no matter how fast it is. The other drive, no matter how slow it is, will finish the work required and is infinitely superior to the capacity limited, but slightly faster 160GB HD.

So, again: The fastest and most capacious HD currently available is the 7K500 500GB Hitachi, imho.

The two benchmarks attached were both obtained in the VAIO I'm currently using with only 4GB RAM at the time. The scores are night and day difference with the Seagate dominating the Scorpio Blue. However, the performance in actual use was not only reversed - the Seagate seemed broken in the way it worked. Random errors about 'such and such file not found' and inexplicable pauses (stuttering?) that made a mockery of it's so called 'superior' scores. This discrepancy, more than anything else, has made me very suspicious of benchmarks in general - at least when I'm not doing them and able to back them up with real use of my own.

 

Well I just received the WD 2.5" WD3200BJKT 320GB SATA 7200rpm 16mb hdd base on all the positive feedback from here. I'm just not sure on the best way to connect it for optimal efficiency. I just hope it works as good as everyone says. I was also going to get the Hitachi 500 GB but held off because I really don't need the extra storage yet. Nor am I even sure it will make a significant improvement for my video configuration.

I don't want to spend money on something that really won't improve operation.

 

Krane,

I can't recall the minimum transfer rate needed for 'live' video transcoding, but am almost 100% sure the Hitachi offers it more than the 1.5 yr old Scorpio Black.

I think proper partitioning is a requirement for you no matter what HD you decide to use.

 

Actually they do, you'd need to run the HDTune write benchmark and then look at the random writes. Seagate 7200.4 under performs at this.

Even that I don't agree on

I have a strong feeling the WD Scorpio Black 160GB and 320GB will manage to outperform the 7K500 in many real life situations. I don't have real life benchmarks to prove it though.

But hey we're talking about 3% percent or so. So let's say Hitachi 7K500 is one of the fastest hard drives around now. And I'll agree with you

 

Phil,

Thanks for the tip on the random writes. Since the HD would need zero partitions on it to do that test with HD Tune, I've never done it so didn't know that it would show such a huge discrepancy to the Scorpio Blue. Will it really be six times slower than the BEVT drive's 'score'?

lol...

I guess we would have to agree what 'capacious' means for each of us. To me, my current minimum is now at 500GB and has been for a while, so, in essence we are saying the Hitachi is fast - cool!

Wishing you and yours all the best in this New Year!