5400 vs 7200 rpm notebook drive, and heat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Liam
  • Start date Start date
L

Liam

I'm looking at getting an Alienware Sentia m3450 notebook.
With the dual-core Centrinos, the Intel 950 graphics chip, it should
run reasonably cool, no?
("Cool" as in heat, of course. *g*)
So, I'm deciding between a cheaper 5400 rpm drive or a faster 7200
drive, and was wondering if the faster spin causes additional heat? I
know that notebook drives already produce a lot of the heat in a
notebook. Will this make any real difference?
Is 7200 over 5400 worth the extra cost? I'm basically using it for word
processing and Office tasks, but sometimes games (obviously because of
the graphics chip, older games like EVE-Online, Sid Meyer's Prirates!,
Civ-2, Neverwinter Nights 1, etc.)
Should I stick with 5400 or is 7200 worth the extra money I could use
elsewhere?
Thanks for any feedback!
Liam
 
Bob said:
The drive is the slowest part of the system. How slow is acceptable to you?
Click to expand...
Well, that's my question, isn't it.
How much of a difference is 7200 from 5400? Noticeable? Sometimes
noticeable during certain tasks? All the time noticeable?
In just numbers 7200 is what, 25% faster than 5400? But I know in
actual useage that doesn't mean performance is exactly 25% faster all
the time.
So, some feedback on the difference between the two would be nice.
Thanks!
Liam
 
So are you getting LOTS of memory to prevent program swaps to pagefile?
Are you the kind of person that has to have every program you might use
open at the same time? Do you play music and movies? A good 7200 is
nearly 50% faster than a 5400. So, how slow is acceptable to you?
 
You only need to ask one question really. Are you going to be doing any
editing of large files (Music, pictures or Video) now, soon or in the
future? If you are or might then you have to go for the 7200. In fact, the
difference in price you should always go for the 7200 anyway. Don't even
think about it, the 5400 shouldn't even be an option. I think you probably
get my point!

72007200720072007200720072007200720072007200720072007200720072007200720072007200720072007200720072007200720072007200
Hope that helps.
Lenny
 
You really can't generalize. It is probably true that the average 7200
rpm drive runs hotter than the average 5400 rpm drive, but when you get
to talking about specific drives, there are 5,400 rpm drives that use
more power than specific 7,200 rpm drives. In the end, power = heat,
and it's kind of become a standard that the hard drive is allocated 2.5
watts (5 volts @ 500ma) because that is both what the drives themselves
had been converging to as a power requirement (even 5+ years ago) and
because that is the maximum spec of power available from a USB port.
And since you are really only concerned with the difference between two
drives, it just isn't likely to be that big of a deal except in very
extreme cases.

However, the cost of the 7,200 rpm drive is likely to be significantly
higher than that of a 5,400 rpm drive.
 
Very noticeable, but only on some tasks.

Well, that's my question, isn't it.
How much of a difference is 7200 from 5400? Noticeable? Sometimes
noticeable during certain tasks? All the time noticeable?
In just numbers 7200 is what, 25% faster than 5400? But I know in
actual useage that doesn't mean performance is exactly 25% faster all
the time.
So, some feedback on the difference between the two would be nice.
Thanks!
Liam
Click to expand...
 
Barry Watzman said:
You really can't generalize. It is probably true that the average 7200
rpm drive runs hotter than the average 5400 rpm drive, but when you get to
talking about specific drives, there are 5,400 rpm drives that use more
power than specific 7,200 rpm drives. In the end, power = heat, and it's
kind of become a standard that the hard drive is allocated 2.5 watts (5
volts @ 500ma) because that is both what the drives themselves had been
converging to as a power requirement (even 5+ years ago) and because that
is the maximum spec of power available from a USB port. And since you are
really only concerned with the difference between two drives, it just
isn't likely to be that big of a deal except in very extreme cases.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of 2.5 inch drives that use more than 500mA. If you buy
any decent 2.5 inch drive enclosure today, they come with a USB lead that
has 2 USB plugs on. The second plug is purely for extra power.
 
Liam said:
I'm looking at getting an Alienware Sentia m3450 notebook.
With the dual-core Centrinos, the Intel 950 graphics chip, it should
run reasonably cool, no?
("Cool" as in heat, of course. *g*)
So, I'm deciding between a cheaper 5400 rpm drive or a faster 7200
drive, and was wondering if the faster spin causes additional heat? I
know that notebook drives already produce a lot of the heat in a
notebook. Will this make any real difference?
Is 7200 over 5400 worth the extra cost? I'm basically using it for word
processing and Office tasks, but sometimes games (obviously because of
the graphics chip, older games like EVE-Online, Sid Meyer's Prirates!,
Civ-2, Neverwinter Nights 1, etc.)
Should I stick with 5400 or is 7200 worth the extra money I could use
elsewhere?
Thanks for any feedback!
Liam
Click to expand...

I am using a ThinkPad R31, and when the original 4500rpm drive started
failing I replaced with a 7200rpm. I definitely noticed a difference in
responsiveness, and not just because the drive isn't failing. For me, it
was definitely worth the differential.

I do not find an increase in heat or much of a decrease in battery life.

HTH
-pk
 
Patrick said:
I am using a ThinkPad R31, and when the original 4500rpm drive started
failing I replaced with a 7200rpm. I definitely noticed a difference in
responsiveness, and not just because the drive isn't failing. For me, it
was definitely worth the differential.

I do not find an increase in heat or much of a decrease in battery life.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! I appreciate the feedback. =)
-Liam
 
I beg to differ on your first point. There are some, but not many
(actually, there were more 10 years ago).

On the second point, yes, many do come with such plugs. Since there are
some such drives, it's a conservative approach. Most drives don't need
such cables, however, but a few do (there is also the situation where
you are operating with an unpowered USB port and the USB port itself (on
an unpowered hub or a PC Card, as when USB 2 is added to a laptop that
natively has only USB 1.x ports) can't supply power at all).
 
Barry Watzman said:
I beg to differ on your first point. There are some, but not many
(actually, there were more 10 years ago).

On the second point, yes, many do come with such plugs. Since there are
some such drives, it's a conservative approach. Most drives don't need
such cables, however, but a few do (there is also the situation where you
are operating with an unpowered USB port and the USB port itself (on an
unpowered hub or a PC Card, as when USB 2 is added to a laptop that
natively has only USB 1.x ports) can't supply power at all).
Click to expand...

Such a USB hub would not be allowed to display the USB logo or indeed claim
to be a USB device as it would violate the USB specification, which requires
a minimum current of 100 mA to be supplied from every USB port (applies to
both USB1 and USB2). In fact every hub or PCMCIA card* that will run
without an external power supply, that I have come across, will do precisely
that - deriving the power from the port it is plugged into.

*That is what this USB2 card I have here is marked as.
 
That's simply not correct. PC Cards for adding USB 2.0 to laptops which
only have USB 1.x are common, and are often unpowered. And unpowered
hubs are common also. [In some cases, the cards and/or hubs can be
powered, but only with external transformers or power supplies that are
not always even sold with them. But, in any case, there is no
requirement that hubs or PC Cards offer power.]
 
Bob said:
So are you getting LOTS of memory to prevent program swaps to pagefile?
Are you the kind of person that has to have every program you might use
open at the same time? Do you play music and movies? A good 7200 is
nearly 50% faster than a 5400. So, how slow is acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't make all *that* much difference, outside of certain
tasks, though it is sometimes noticeable.

I recently upgraded from 4200 RPM drive to 7200 RPM drive and here are
some benchmarks.

On a synthetic benchmark:
Timing buffered disk reads: 86 MB in 3.00 seconds = 28.64 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 156 MB in 3.01 seconds = 51.85 MB/sec

based on that, you'd think WOW! And for copying a huge file, it does
make a very big difference:
real 2m17.606s
real 1m17.829s

But then look at boot times:
54.7s
47s
App loading times are comparable - you'll save a few seconds here and there.

And compile times:
real 0m58.301s
real 0m55.941s
not much improvement there.

On the plus side, energy usage (heat) isn't much different between the
two, either.

So if you want to spend some extra money and save a few seconds here and
there, go ahead. But if you ask me it's MUCH more important to have
enough RAM first. Whether to spend any leftover money on CPU or disk
just depends on what you're going to be doing.
 
Barry Watzman said:
That's simply not correct. PC Cards for adding USB 2.0 to laptops which
only have USB 1.x are common, and are often unpowered. And unpowered hubs
are common also. [In some cases, the cards and/or hubs can be powered,
but only with external transformers or power supplies that are not always
even sold with them. But, in any case, there is no requirement that hubs
or PC Cards offer power.]
Click to expand...

Then they do not meet the specification.

Paragraph 7.2.1 of the USB2 specification states, under 'bus powered hubs'
that, "External ports of a bus powered hub can only supply one unit load
regardless of the current draw on the other ports of that hub. The hub
*must* be able to supply this port current when the hub is in the active or
suspend state" (my emphasis). Under self powered hubs it states, "Hubs that
obtain power externally (from the USB) *must* supply 5 unit loads to each
port". There is a note that hubs powered from internal batteries can supply
either one or five units.

As I said: all the hubs (and PCMCIA cards) I have come across (and we have
quite a few here) will deliver 100mA per port if no external power supply is
connected (bus powered), if they work at all without a power supply. There
are those that simply will not work without a power supply (self powered
only). There are those, of course, which do both. The bus powered ones
derive the 100mA per port supply from the USB port they plug into, which
must, of course, be able to supply the full 500mA. They do not enumerate if
plugged into a 100mA port. The PCMCIA cards derive their supplies from the
PCMCIA port.

The USB specifications require that a port must guarantee to be able to
supply at least 1 unit load (1 unit is 100mA) at between 4.40 and 5.25
volts. (The minimum voltage rises to 4.75 volts if 500mA is available).

These were derived from the firewire specs which also specify the 100mA
minimum and 500mA maximum, but only if power is available, because unlike
USB, the provision of a supply is not mandatory (or possible on a 4 pin
connector), and in any event, the voltage is not actually defined, but
everyone seems to have settled on 12volts. All the firewire hubs I have
seen (and I haven't seen many), work without an external power supply, but
output no power at all. When the power supply is connected, the port
supplies are available. This may be to do with the upstream port not being a
dedicated port. I have not crossed swords with a Firewire PCMCIA card yet.
 
Back
Top