Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Laptop hard drive... 5400 or 7200 ?

<< < (8/15) > >>

Armando:
 ;D didn't even notice !

Like f0dder, though, I'd go for the faster drive... For me, size isn't a huge factor as I already have a 500GB external and by the time I fill that up no doubt we'll be seeing TB notebook drives...
-Darwin (December 29, 2007, 11:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

Thanks Darwin. Well, I'm just wondering if the Seagate is really that faster... would it be noticeable in my everyday computing, indexing, making backups...????

Considering the Samsung's got much more storage capacity, that it's cheaper and that it's supposed to consume even less power (not by much though), I'm starting to wonder.

But... if the "random access time" difference  between the Seagate and the Samsung really makes a difference then... maybe it's worth it. But, again, f0dder seems to suggest that it might not even be noticeable... hummmm...

Darwin:
Dilemma, dilemma, dilemma... I'm in the same boat. *Should* I pursue trying to find either an IDE version of the Samsung drive or a second generation 7200 rpm drive?! Or should I just be happy with what I've got? A little fence sitting to watch which way the wind blows is looking pretty attractive right now!

f0dder:
Oh, didn't notice the size difference of the drives.

Personally, I'd be satisfied with 160gigs in a laptop, since I don't use one as my primary computer (the only reason I'm using laptop right now is because I'm fixing a couple for the museum - I do eventually want a laptop, though). Heck, size-wise, I'd even go for 64 or 32 gigs if it was solid-state...

Armando:
okay... But considering the price/size/performance ratio, seems to me like the samsung is -- or might be -- the deal.

What I'm actually interested in is to know whether the Seagate will REALLY be faster than the Samsung or if the difference will be negligible. (because if the difference is negligible I don't see any point and spending more money for a smaller drive that consumes a bit more energy -- albeit not much).

 in other words : yes I'd like a faster drive... but, according to the numbers, would the Seagate really be noticeably faster ?

Lashiec:
Well, you have the benchmarks, which are able to tell you which is faster. Samsung access times are "slower" (as if someone could notice 3ms of difference...), of course, in computer time that's a lot, but the Samsung has overall faster speed in transfer, both in reading and writing.

On the other hand, the Seagate excels in server benchmarks, which means it handles better than the Samsung multiple reading/writing requests at the same time, this is influenced by seek times. Of course, the Seagate consumes more energy, which is normal being a bigger diskdrive and (I suppose) having more platters than the Samsung, that means more mass to move for the drive motor.

I think you have to weight pros and cons, the Seagate is bigger, has better access times, and handles server workloads better, but consumes more energy, which is something to consider with laptops, and costs more. The Samsung have better transfer speed, consumes some less juice and is cheaper, but is smaller, and access times are worse along server performance. It's your call, but each one is the perfect nemesis of the other ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page