PDA

View Full Version : 7200 vs 10000 Hard Drives


Sir Robin
06-11-2006, 03:17
Getting a new pc soon and I was wondering.

Is a 10000 rpm hard drive much better than a 7200 rpm hard drive?
Dooz
06-11-2006, 05:38
If numbers mean anything, you'd have to assume so.
hoom
06-11-2006, 06:57
The new big Seagate 7200rpm drives with perpendicular recording are nearly as fast as a 10000rpm drive while being a: cheaper per gig and b: bigger in capacity.
Lemur
06-11-2006, 16:25
The fastest hard drive currently on the market. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822136012)

Not sure about the Seagate HDs -- I thought they were supposed to be years from hitting the desktop. It's entirely possible I missed a major announcement, though. Links, please?

[edit]

Never mind, a little searching turned up this (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/seagate-barracuda-720010-750-gb-hard-drive-170009.php)and this (http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/hard_drives/seagate/7200.10_750/index.htm).
KukriKhan
06-11-2006, 19:12
Yikes... that last link to cluboverclocker blew up my IE6 browser while trying to load; anything special about that place?
Lemur
06-11-2006, 19:14
The Club OC link has actual tests between a second-gen Raptor (74 gig) and the Seagate 750. The Seagate spanks the Raptor, which is Big News. The site views fine in Firefox ...
KukriKhan
06-11-2006, 19:39
Third times a charm. The page does say: "Best viewed with Mozilla Firefox 1.5 @ 1024x768. " I guess this is how Firefox fans feel on some IE-centric pages. :)
Geezer57
06-13-2006, 23:10
The Tech Report has a new article here http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2/raptor-wd1500/index.x?pg=1 that compares the latest 10k Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD hard drive (150 gig) with others, including Seagate's latest perpendicular Barracuda 7200.10 HDD. The Seagate drive was very close on a number of benchmarks, but the authors said the the Raptor WD1500ADFD was simply the fastest Serial ATA drive they'd ever tested. If cost-per-gig is a big factor with you, then you may want to choose something else, but the new WD drive is FAST!!!
rory_20_uk
06-19-2006, 22:21
They will generally have faster seek times and data transfer rates, but also be more power hungry, noisier and hotter.

There is also the issue of whether you will notice the difference, which greatly depends on what you use your PC for.

In terms of buying, I'd wait for a hybrid device. If you want the next version of Windows they're a prerequisite.

~:smoking:
hoom
06-20-2006, 06:51
Only prerequisite for laptops.
Papewaio
06-20-2006, 06:58
RAID array if you want speed...
edyzmedieval
06-20-2006, 12:41
Possible to connect these 2 (WD Raptor~D) in RAID?
Lemur
06-20-2006, 14:07
Of course it's possible. But I thought the benefits of RAID for a single-user were overrated ...
Papewaio
06-21-2006, 01:47
Speed increase for money spent then a RAID array beats a single fast drive. Also depending on the amount of drives you use you can go from a pure speed or mirroring setup to a combination of both. RAID arrays are used by companies for data backup (they of course get to use the 15,000 RPM server drives)... however even for a normal user if your motherboard has the right setup then use it. Alot of the MBs are coming with SATA/RAID capacity, or for about $60 you could get a PCI card that allows basic RAID 0 or 1 with SATA on your PC, for $200 you can start looking at 4 Channel SATA Raid controllers that allow RAID 10 as well.
hoom
06-24-2006, 04:21
The problem with Raid is:
a: raid 0 is too dangerous for all that data unless its just a couple of little drives, imagine losing a 2*750GB Raid 0 array :skull:
b: all the others have capacity overhead 100% for Raid 1, reduced to 33.3'% for Raid 5 I believe but that also requires 3 equal drives...
I guess if you happened to have 3*750GB drives, you're not really going to miss that 750GB too much though :inquisitive:
edyzmedieval
06-24-2006, 13:13
What do you mean by losing the hards? :inquisitive:
hoom
06-24-2006, 23:34
If you have a Raid 0 array & one of the HDDs breaks, you lose all the data on all the disks in that array.

The first R is for Redundant, the whole point is supposed to be about getting data redundancy so that if a HDD breaks you don't loose data.

Raid 1 is mirroring so the same data is on all drives in the array.
If one breaks, you still have the data so its ok but from 2 disks you only get the usable space of 1.

Raid 5 requires 3 drives minimum & has data striped across two a-la raid 0 but uses the 3rd for error checking data.
If one of the raid 5 disks breaks, you can replace it without loss of data.
Raid 5 has usable space of 2 disks from minimum of 3 disks.