7200 vs 5400 HDD

Are there any disadvanteges when I order my M570RU with 7200rpm HDD instead of 5400? Noise? Is the 7k much louder? Big difference in battery life? Im thinking of getting the 7k 200gb or the 320 gb 5k.... Im gona use it for gaming most of the time... Is the 7k much faster?
Why do i have dilemma? I will invest a lot of money and i dont wanna get a slow system becaouse the 5400 rpm hdd is the bottleneck!
sry for my english, i hope you can understand it

 

There are no real disadvantages to using a 7200 RPM drive. The heat and power differences are negligible. That being said, I've used 120 GB 5,400 RPM and 7,200 RPM drives side-by-side, and, while the loading times are faster on the 7,200 RPM drive, I've not noticed much beyond loading times being helped by the 7,200.

 

5400 is just as good nowadays. even better for some benchmarks.

 

I have the samsung 200gb 7200rpm drive in mine and I love it! Very fast and not loud at all. I'm coming from a 10k raptor so I wasn't going to be easily impressed, but I'm never going SATA150 again =)

One note, my hard drive does idle around 48 degrees and under full load (after an hour of video compression) will settle around 60 degrees. This is quite warm, but I read the operating spec for the drive and it said temps up to 60oC are ok for normal operation.

All this said, I have not used a 5400rpm hdd in many many years...

 

My 5400 rpm Fujitsu maxes out at 57C, and idles at about 45 C. So I guess the 7200 rpm is the better choise...
OR BETTER YET get the 320 Gb 5400 rpm one which performs the same as the 200gb 7200 rpm one

 

that's what i meant. i have a 250gb and a 320 in my m1710 raided together with dynamic drives.

eleron did you check my howto for RAID. in that smartbay thread..

I discovered how to use raid 0,1,5 in XP PRO that's just as good as HW RAID with only 2 drives in m1710 or even your notebook

I got 70gb boot partition and a raid 0 array 500gb in my xps.

and I get 8ms response time and 120mb/s read/write.

 

Mine doesn`t support dual hdds, without some gimmicks. So I`ll just get the 320 GB hdd and be done with it. Although raid 0 would`ve been lovely...

 

neither does mine.

all I did was take out the cdrom and then put in a chassis. and now I have raid 500gb

and then use a external slimline usb enclosure for bd/hd

 

Yea , but mine does not have a Raid controller, different chipset required
I can live without RAID, although it`s hard

 

your not listening.

you don't need a RAID controller.

I proved it wrong and figured out how to enable software RAID in Windows. it works 100% the same as Hardware RAID. even better cuz you can RAID 2 drives and still boot windows.

I wrote a howto over @notebookforums.

no one else has achieved this as far as I have ever seen. and most say it was impossible.



the m1710 doesn't have a RAID controller, and I am getting 120mb/s read /write and 8ms response time not to mention 500gb of space. and 70gb of boot.

 

Link to some info on this 320 GB drive? I'd be interested in reading about a 5400 rpm drive with the same performance as a 7200.

 

Software and hardware raid aren't exactly the same thing. Software raid is stressing your hardware much more because it has to handle the work a raid controller would. There is a reason raid controllers are produced and sold. Every time you write to software raid that's another interrupt to the CPU that would normally be handled seamlessly by a raid controller.

I'm not saying you can't get good performance from software raid, but it's not "100% the same as Hardware RAID".

 

obviously...
it's done with software not hardware.

it produces the same result stripped drives.

jebuz. it's an alternative to hardware raid.

when you have no other choice it's moot, i mean if you could install a raid controller into a laptop internally etc... it would make sense.

yes it's not the same. but there is no alternatives.

it's raid or nothing. in a laptop without a controller.

if I had a controller I would use it.

this is for people with no controllers and is their only alternative.

 

Again I didn't say at any point it was not a good solution. You did state however that it is 100% the same thing. I just want to make sure people know that its not before doing it.

 

@Warrior1986:

The performance is relative, but with hard drive platters the way they are now, data density is as important as rotational velocity in determining the speed of the drive. If you have two sets of platters that are the same size, but one set holds 200 GB and one set holds 320 GB, it takes fewer rotations to read the same amount of data on the 320 than it would on the 200, which means that the 320 can read at competitive speeds to the 200, even though its platters are spinning slower.

This is why many people say that the 320 at 5,400 RPM is "just as fast" as the 200 at 7,200. Even though the 200 GB drive probably does have a slight speed advantage, it's nowhere near as noticeable as if you were comparing the drive to a 200 GB drive at 5,400 RPM.

 

i have the 320gb HD on my laptop and i am very pleased with the performance, the extra space is really useful for me ad i do alot of competitive gaming on Clanbase where we need to record our matches

 

D'oh! I forgot about that. It makes perfect sense then. I guess I'm sold on getting the 320GB then when the time comes.