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.

    Hitachi 7200 RPM 100 GB vs Hitachi 5400 RPM 160 GB Review

    Discussion in 'Notebook News and Reviews' started by jjsscram, Sep 3, 2006.

  1. jjsscram

    jjsscram Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    27
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    This is my first try at a review, so please bare with me. I done some google searchs for the info I have here but could not find execlty what I was looking for. I started with the 100 GB 7200 RPM SATA Model #: HTS721010G9SA00 which I cleaned up and defragmented. I then cloned that HD to the 160 GB 5400 RPM SATA Model #: HTS541616J9SA00 before I started my test.

    Both HD made 57 secs to windows login, so no differace here. Both HD also fealt the same during operation, with programs running and gaming. I then ran the HDtune program to test the numbers, please see the pics below.

    Hitachi 5400 RPM 160 GB.JPG

    Hitachi 7200 RPM 100 GB.JPG

    As you can see there is very little deferace here. So I chose to go with the 160 GB in my notebook and use the 100 GB in my external HD encloser.
     
    jjsscram, Sep 3, 2006
    #1
  2. wobble987

    wobble987 Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    543
    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    hey how come the 5400rpm one is 3degrees hotter than the 7200rpm one? is the 5400rpm that perpendicular one?
     
    wobble987, Sep 3, 2006
    #2
  3. jjsscram

    jjsscram Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    27
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    Yes it the perpebdicular one. The temp differance is from the ambiant temp change, one was test was done done during the early morning and the other was done around noon.
     
    jjsscram, Sep 3, 2006
    #3
  4. wobble987

    wobble987 Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    543
    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    aaah, i thought so, just checking :) ... seems like a nice hard drive! does it have lower operational noise? and/or lower temperature compare to the 7200rpm one?
     
    wobble987, Sep 3, 2006
    #4
  5. Chris27

    Chris27 Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    421
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I have both too and I don't see a diference in performance either.
     
    Chris27, Sep 3, 2006
    #5
  6. jjsscram

    jjsscram Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    27
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    15
    The noise level seems to be the same on both, or at least I have not noticed the differance.
     
    jjsscram, Sep 4, 2006
    #6
  7. wobble987

    wobble987 Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    543
    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    cool! thanks! that perpendicular drive is nice, let just hope most notebook on sale next year is equiped with this drive! that increased density sure is a welcome change :)
     
    wobble987, Sep 4, 2006
    #7