- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
- Location
- Hamilton, Ontario
Which is faster for a laptop? Say... a 5400 rpm 60GB SATA fujitsu HDD compared to a 7200 rpm PATA?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
7200 RPM PATA HDD or 5400 SATA HDD
- Thread starter Chado
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Location
- A house mouse
the 7200 pata. we arent even close to reaching the limits of sata, especially on a 5400 sata drive. We are closer to reaching the limits of pata.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
i have heard from people on notebookforums.com that SATA drives use less power then PATA drives(so if battery life is important to you then try and go with SATA), but i have no proof of that myself, though my next laptop i will be putting in a SATA drive
(also 7200 rpm drives use more power then 5400 rpm drives so again your going to be loosing some battery life)
(also 7200 rpm drives use more power then 5400 rpm drives so again your going to be loosing some battery life)
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Location
- Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Maybe one or two minutes per hour...nothing noticeable.Icedfire101 said:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2002
I would seriously go for the 7200... pata or sata... that don't matter to me... maybe if the drive was 10000 rpm but it's not...
I had a laptop with a 5400 rpm drive and it was ssssllloooowww... but now I have a 7200rpm hd and it's as quick as a desktop...
I had a laptop with a 5400 rpm drive and it was ssssllloooowww... but now I have a 7200rpm hd and it's as quick as a desktop...
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2001
- Location
- Corona, CA
just to let you know a 60GB 7200 and a 100GB 5400 preform about the same B/C of densinty of the platters. Just letting you know.
OP
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
- Location
- Hamilton, Ontario
- Thread Starter
- #7
awesome replies, thanks fellas
apu318
Disabled
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
Vengance_01 said:
Depends on what you're doing. The extra density of the extra 40 gigs is minimal, and it is spread out over 2 or 3 platters anyways, no it's not terribly more dense per platter. The extra rotational speed will yield the most performance. Quite a lot more performance at that.
The interface is not a big issue because PATA and SATA drives transfer at the same speed basically, which doesn't even meet the ATA100 spec in sustained transfer rates. Most 7200rpm drives will transfer data at burst speeds of around 100.
Icedfire101 said:
I'm pretty sure this is due to the SATA drives being newer drives, not because the drives are SATA. SATA's advantages come with things in desktop systems, like cable management, controllers, etc. With laptops, just go with whatever will work in your particular system.
In response to the original question, go 7200. I notice little, if any, difference between my 7200s and similar desktop systems, and I'd pay a couple of minutes of battery life for that.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Location
- Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Can you provide some documentation for that? I have seen nothing in my reading to support that claim.Vengance_01 said:
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Location
- Anchorage, AK
I think that the 7200 will produce more heat. Also, if this is in a "desktop replacement", those few minute add to the already power hunger components and create a greater impact.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2001
- Location
- Corona, CA
Well I have real data but I have read it kinda makes sense. I plan do buy a new HD and I will try and compare real world and not just benchmarks. Not like sandra but Windows, gamming ect...dvandervelde said:
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
Just so you know, a 7200 rpm Hitachi gets better battery life than the 5400 rpm Seagate Momentus which is supposed to use the same amount of power as a 4200.
http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/20030813/mini-harddisks-02.html
I had a link before with battery life tests, though I can´t find it. At any rate, if you have the money, go for a 7k60
http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/20030813/mini-harddisks-02.html
I had a link before with battery life tests, though I can´t find it. At any rate, if you have the money, go for a 7k60
dvandervelde said:
The reasoning here might be taken from some StorageReview tests, where some 500 GB drives beat 74 GB Raptors in one or two benchmarks because of density, cache, and firmware optimizations. The only thing here is that the densities are too close together to really matter (a rough guess).
If you can't spring for a 100GB, go for a smaller capacity 7K100. They're second-gen drives and cost just about the same as a comparable 7K60.
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
I recently upgraded my T23, from a 4200 RPM 40 GB drive, to a 5400 RPM 40, then again, to a 7200 RPM 60 GB.
Let me tell you, get the FASTEST platter speed, you can! My T23 doesn't have a SATA option, so I couldn't test that out, but platter speed is an AWESOME feature! (I think the Raptors are so fast, is because of the 10K rotation speed, not because of the SATA.)
steve
Let me tell you, get the FASTEST platter speed, you can! My T23 doesn't have a SATA option, so I couldn't test that out, but platter speed is an AWESOME feature! (I think the Raptors are so fast, is because of the 10K rotation speed, not because of the SATA.)
steve
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2002
you also got to remember that laptop drives are smaller and skinnier than desktop 3.5" drives so by default they allready have an incredible density... In my opinion I have always rated my drives based upon random seek times which is mostly affected by platter speed and the rate the read/write head can get from one spot to another... higher density does not gaurentee that the read/write head has less distance to travel(the read/write head has the same distance to travel from the innermost track to the outermost track and density has nothing to do with this physical distance) as EVEN a well defragged drive will have files scattered all over the disk (especially files which are continiously edited or rewritten or get moved around alot because they often get fragmented) and the density of the disk will do little to enhance the peformance of the seek times...
the difference all really boils down to seek time. And with the 72k drives you just have a much better seek time.
also its my understanding that the Hitachi 7k60 drive generates less heat than the 42k drives. Though I have no documentation on that fact its just somthing I have seen in several locations from people that I do respect for thier knowledge.
also its my understanding that the Hitachi 7k60 drive generates less heat than the 42k drives. Though I have no documentation on that fact its just somthing I have seen in several locations from people that I do respect for thier knowledge.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Location
- Bloomington, IN
Steve, how would you say the heat and power consumption compared? Thanks -- Paul
Similar threads
