Bigger Hardrive = Better Performance?

[dragoon38900]

Ok, so Ive read in a couple of sites and forums of poeple saying that, basically:

7200 rpm 160gb = 5400 rpm 320gb
or something like that.

The slower HD performs at the same level of a faster HD with smaller space because of the density on the slower HD. In other words, a faster HD will perform at the same level as a slower HD with more space.

This does make a lot of sense in words, only if the disks have the same amount of surface area, in which when it has more data capacity on it, one rotation will go through more data.

How much of this is actually true? I cant find any articles on this matter.
Does that mean that I made a mistake of buying a raptor 10,000rpm 150gb for $170 when I could of gotten a 7200rpm 1TB for much less?

 

[jjsevdt]

That's not true. your seek time is greatly impacted by the drive's RPMs and the density will not affect it.

I know it doesn't but if the disc rotated at half the speed it would take twice as long to search for all the parts of the file it's looking for (if fragmented)

 

[scooter]

My new build I'm gonna do dual 300gb velociraptors (10krpm)..

I'm not a fan of massve drives,,i like 250-320's...hehe..i wierd i know..


raid power rules.

 

[simpletron]

"7200 rpm 160gb = 5400 rpm 320gb"

in pure thoughput, this statement is probably pretty close to being correct. pure thoughput for is when you do long sequential read/writes like reading a large unfragment file.

but there are other aspects of a hard drive other than pure thoughput. like seek time(maxinum time to move from file to the next), this is a function of rpms and the heads movement pattern. the faster the rpms are, the lower the seek time is. and lower seek time improves reading/write multiple small ramdom files like in the OS or doing multiple programs at the same time that require using the hard drive.

whether or not you made a mistake depends on what you plan on doing with the hard drive. if you use the raptor as main drive as in has the OS on it and most of your programs you use start from it, then your computer will be faster and more responsive than with a 1tb drive. but if you are going to just store large files on it then you were better off buying the 1tb drive.

 

[Cromewell]

Ok, so Ive read in a couple of sites and forums of poeple saying that, basically:

7200 rpm 160gb = 5400 rpm 320gb
or something like that.

Not to that extent. A bigger drive is faster than a smaller one though I wouldn't take a 5400 rpm drive for a desktop anymore. 7200 is really the slowest you should be looking at.

 

[tyttebøvs]

That's not true. your seek time is greatly impacted by the drive's RPMs and the density will not affect it.

You might see a little performance gain. With bigger density, your files might just happen to be stored in a smaller area on the platter(s). Smaller area = better seek time.

 

[dragoon38900]

though I wouldn't take a 5400 rpm drive for a desktop anymore. 7200 is really the slowest you should be looking at

True, but for laptops, it just makes me wonder if its worth upgrading to 7200, seeing as most of them are only 5400.

whether or not you made a mistake depends on what you plan on doing with the hard drive. if you use the raptor as main drive as in has the OS on it and most of your programs you use start from it, then your computer will be faster and more responsive than with a 1tb drive. but if you are going to just store large files on it then you were better off buying the 1tb drive.

This is exactly why i wanted to buy the 10k rpm, for faster loading and writing time... I do a lot of Video editing. I also have a 320gb secondary drive for storing. I might just go ahead and buy myself a 1TB HD 7200 rpm and see for myself. I also read in some reviews in newegg of people claiming that those hardrives were faster than their raptors... maybe because of the new Tech of 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s compared to the older raptor's 8-16MB cache SATA1.5?

 

[Cromewell]

True, but for laptops, it just makes me wonder if its worth upgrading to 7200, seeing as most of them are only 5400.

For a laptop a 5400 drive is for battery reasons. I have a laptop with a 7200 drive and it still gets pretty good battery life though.

I also read in some reviews in newegg of people claiming that those hardrives were faster than their raptors... maybe because of the new Tech of 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s compared to the older raptor's 8-16MB cache SATA1.5?

New drives use perpendicular recording which greatly increases density and speed.

 

[dave_w]

I've got a Raptor, an old Raptor X. Love it to death, haven't even filled up half of it, because I don't do anything productive with my rig.

That said, I've also tried out some of the new perpendicular recording drives, and a few (I won't name names) aren't any faster than my little Raptor. HOWEVER, I defrag at least once a week, I use a stripped down (nLite'd) Windows install, and I don't have a lot of background crap on my computer.

Bottom line, spend a few bucks on one of the little 70-gig or so Raptors for your OS and heavily-used programs, and get a nice big drive for all your files. Just don't hop onto the 1TB bandwagon. Just like a PSU, figure out how much capacity you really need. It would suck to get a budget 1TB when you could have gotten a really good 500-750GB drive.