The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Looking for lowest power consumption 2.5 hdd (no ssd)

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Abula, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. Abula

    Abula Puro Chapin

    Reputations:
    1,115
    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Hi,

    Im looking for 2.5 mechanical hdd that has the least electrical consumption, size dont matter (well at least 100GB), cant be ssd as its going the get heavy writes cycles, im assuming a single platter 5400rpm would be the best, but i have little experience in which laptop drive would be better.

    Thanks for any suggestion,
     
  2. Tsunade_Hime

    Tsunade_Hime such bacon. wow

    Reputations:
    5,413
    Messages:
    10,711
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    581
    You probably want to look at the Scorpio Blue 160GB (WD1600BEVT)
     
  3. tilleroftheearth

    tilleroftheearth Wisdom listens quietly...

    Reputations:
    5,398
    Messages:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    2,717
    Trophy Points:
    631
    With 'heavy write cycles' I would not be looking for a 2/3 yr old (tech time) based drive. I have no doubt that the energy needed will be excessive compared to modern (current) models.

    I would be looking at a WD Scorpio Black 750GB HDD partitioned/short-stroked to ~100GB (or as small as a capacity you can use).

    This will be the most efficient drive with constant writing/reading to it (it will finish each request faster - allowing the drive to be in idle for longer periods than the slow Scorpio Blue drive would be).

    Good luck.
     
  4. miro_gt

    miro_gt Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    433
    Messages:
    1,748
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    56
  5. Abula

    Abula Puro Chapin

    Reputations:
    1,115
    Messages:
    3,252
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Thanks ill look into it.

    Thank for the suggestion, but I made the mistake of not explaning it correctly, im not chosing an ssd out of writing too much probaly 100 gb a week, but its not intesive tasks, its more like downloads, so a fast or slow drive wont make a difference, although after ill transfer it to a server where it might affect the transfer speeds in gigabit lan, but this is not so important, woudl prefer to save $$$ on lower consumption drive. But i do understand what you said and makes sense, just not fully applies here.

    Thanks for the chart, weird says 2009 but has the 7k750, maybe gets updated post 2009. Interesting those toshibas, not sure i could moun 1.8 drives though, but on the other hand it matches the blue suggestion above, so might do some serious search on that drive. For some reason i always though the 5k500B was one of the best but comes as mid table drive, in term of consumption.
     
  6. HTWingNut

    HTWingNut Potato

    Reputations:
    21,580
    Messages:
    35,370
    Likes Received:
    9,877
    Trophy Points:
    931
    100GB/week will not be an issue for an SSD. Intel estimates a five year lifespan with 20GB/day written (at least based on their warranty), and many believe 100GB/day is realistic. So you'd be safe to bet that 100GB/week is definitely safe. And you would probably get the best power consumption from an SSD, either OCZ (Sandforce), Samsung, or Intel.