5400 vs 7200 (for storage)...

[mztykal]

...both drives are ata100. Do I really need 7200rpm's for a storage drive?

I'll be burning stuff constantly off that drive and I'll be transferring data from it a lot. Will I notice a decrease in performance? The only major difference that I can see at the moment is the $20.00 between the two.

One is a Maxtor and one is a Seagate. I'm running a Barracuda IV (or will be running one) 20GB as my primary.

Thanks!

 

[CraigRT]

<< I'll be burning stuff constantly off that drive and I'll be transferring data from it a lot. Will I notice a decrease in performance? >>



If you get 5400? yeah... 7200 RPM is the way to go... I would never consider buying a 5400 RPM drive this day and age.. price difference is negligible for what you get.

 

[ucla88]

fwiw this has been hashed over so many times in the forums if you do a search on this you're bound to crash your machine with an overflow error.

short answer is 7200

 

[CQuinn]

Burning stuff and transferring lots of data are not what you get a storage drive for, those are what you get a workspace drive for.

So you've answered your own question, the 7200rpm drive will offer much better performance to what you want to use it for.

 

[mztykal]

Reason I said "storage" drive was because all that's going on that drive are mp3's and video files.

 

[khtm]

I guess you've never upgraded from 5400 to 7200 before, eh?

7200 is a HUGE noticeable difference! Even boot time seems to double.


-khtm-

 

[mztykal]

Haha. That was funny.

Just wanted to know which would be better. I'm not dull. I'm never using a 5400 for a boot drive. See my post, I have a Baracuda IV for that. I just wanted the most space for the money, without sacrificing the most performance.

I guess you just assumed and jumped on a chance to show me that you're absolutely no help whatsoever. Thanks!

 

[Shudder]

I've got a 60gb 7200 main drive and 40gb second at 5400.

I use the second for movies and mp3s.. Maybe the movie starts up a second later or the song starts a few microseconds later.. other than that, there's no real difference If you want it purely for storage/secondary drive, it'd probably be better to get 10-20 more gigs for the same price at a lower (but perfectly acceptible) speed.

 

[mztykal]

That's a reply I was looking for!

THANK YOU!

 

[Kingofcomputer]

7200rpm hd has 25% more internal transfer rate, shorter seek time,
even for mp3 storage, don't you want to access the files in shorter time?
for the price of 7200rpm hd so low today, with hot deal even lower than 5400rpm normal price, why should you still bother on 5400 vs 7200?

 

[mikework]

Thats what im thinking, why bother with saving $15-25 on a drive when the extra performance of a 7200rpm will be noticable?

 

[thorin]

If it really is only for storage (ie: Archival purposes) then 5400 will be just fine.

khtm
"7200 is a HUGE noticeable difference! Even boot time seems to double."

Do you mean half (halve)?

Thorin

 

[CraigRT]

<< I guess you just assumed and jumped on a chance to show me that you're absolutely no help whatsoever. Thanks! >>



Maybe we're no help because you already know what is better? buy the 7200 then.. if you know already you shouldn't be asking this..